The 912 Platform: Jake Towne | U.S. Congress 15th District – PA

Posted by styletee12 on September 8, 2009 under E-Z News | 213Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/09/08/the-912-platform-jake-towne-u-s-congress-15th-district-pa/The+912+Platform%3A+Jake+Towne+%7C+U.S.+Congress+15th+District+-+PA2009-09-09+03%3A45%3A58styletee12

Jake Towne’s 9/12 Candidacy Statement

“We should reject big government and look inside ourselves for all the things that built this country into what it was.” – Glenn Beck

9 Principles

1. America is Good.

Conceived in liberty, America is a noble and unique experiment created by some of the most revolutionary and brilliant minds of the 18^th century who made the bold leap from rule by an elite few (oligarchy) to a constitutional republic with checks and balances. Whereas most wars lead to losses in liberty, our founding fathers began, for the first time on earth, a government based on individual liberties and the rule of law. My view is that the government of a free country, properly speaking, rests not in its elected officials but in its laws. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Amazing in its simplicity and clarity, the Constitution has a built-in amendment process to suit the living generation.

2. I believe that individuals are naturally endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which include the right to life, liberty, and property.

I believe in the sanctity of the human mind, and the natural, individual right to exercise religious freedom. As a congressman, I would vigorously defend the U.S. Constitution which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.” I pledge to never use the force of government to infringe upon the people’s rights to worship their Creator or God as they wish.

Furthermore, if I had been alive in 1776, I would have without hesitation have signed the Declaration of Independence which states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Honesty is about being truthful all the time. To become more honest is to always continue to seek the truth, speak the truth, and to always hold an open mind. When faced with fallacies and misdirection, as is often found in today’s DC and political arena, the truth becomes both a shield and a sword. As a public official, delivering the truth to constituents is owed.

4. The family is sacred. Parents are the authority in their childrens’ lives, not the government.

I grew up with five siblings, and hope to find a wife and have five of my own children someday. I understand that the family nucleus is sacrosanct from the forceful touch of government. The government has no role in instructing you and your spouse on how to raise your children. How to feed, clothe, care for their health, and educate children is the responsibility of the parents. We must all understand that our children are our greatest source of wealth. Influenced by our past, they are our hope and legacy for the future.

The family nucleus has been under attack for many years with two working parents now necessary to get by instead of one. This is a direct result of the government’s hidden inflation tax and the FED’s long seige on the integrity of the dollar. We must also remember that although they are dependent on their parents, babies, children, and teenagers are individuals with rights as well.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

No one – not even politicians wearing fine hats and fancy titles – is above the law. Law is the collective organization of the individual to the defense of liberty. The supreme law of America is the Constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” This means the federal government is authorized to exercise only the powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution, and nothing more. The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

Each individual is unique with her or his own preferences, so by definition each person is not equal. However, each individual is fundamentally equal under the law with all other individuals. The rule of law’s framework of liberty ensures the greatest opportunity for individuals to explore their strengths and surmount obstacles. Socialism comes in two flavors. The first – government ownership of the means of production – is easier to spot. The second is far more subtle. The rule of law and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while the rule of law seeks equality in liberty under the law, socialism seeks equality in servitude and restraints upon liberty.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth, nor to grant special privileges, nor to interfere with the lives of individuals and their actions. Your property and the fruits of your labor are your own, and government coercion to forcibly remove you of your property is theft.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

G.B. Shaw once said, “A man never tells you anything until you contradict him.” Freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. Dissent must not only be tolerated but welcomed in a free and open society. The novel idea I will bring to my constituents is “Our Open Office.” This form of open government will deliver transparency and accountability in a new and simple way never seen before in history. All citizens will have a voice of input on the bills I vote on, receive in writing monthly updates with a description of all votes cast and why, and which bills were co-sponsored and introduced and why. All citizens can publicly submit proposals for bills.

9. The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government; the government answers to the people.

A sentence from Pennsylvania’s Constitution says it best: “That all power is originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.” Our founders clearly realized that all power stems from the people, from us, and all officers of government are not masters, but servants. As a Representative, I will be not only a public servant for Pennsylvania’s 15th congressional district, but also their employee.

12 Values

1. Honesty

Honesty is about being truthful to the citizens of my district at all times, even if the truth is stark. When faced with fallacies and misdirection, as is often found in today’s DC and political arena, the truth becomes both a shield and a sword. As a public official, delivering the truth to constituents is owed.

2. Reverence

I deeply revere the right to life, liberty, and property for each individual. Individuals have the right to live their own lives in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others.

3. Hope

While this value has been turned into a cheap buzzword in past presidential campaigns, we must all hope and have faith in each other that if we remain true to our principles and live them out in the presence of adversity and force from our government. With the help of the people, as a Congressman I will help lead the redefining of our ‘res publica,’ OUR Republic, or translated from the Latin, our public affairs. Together we can start a revolution based on liberty and love, and begin an era of real change, real hope, and real transparency and openness.

4. Thrift

As a Congressman, thrift is a crucial value, and one to be admired. I must endeavor to use the funds entrusted to the government (or, in the case of the federal income tax, stolen by the government) as frugally as possible in accordance with the Constitution and the will of the people in my district. Congress is entrusted with guarding the purse strings of our nation, and I must recognize times and causes when this public money is simply not ours to give.

5. Humility

As Congressman, I serve to represent the people in my district. I am their employee and servant, not a master or aloof politician. Through “Our Open Office” plan, I will give each resident a public voice and easy method to communicate with their government, and deliver the transparency and accountability that can only be delivered as a humble servant.

6. Charity

On the individual level, there is nothing wrong with voluntary charity – quite the opposite, it should be commended! However, as your Congressman I hold the view that government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth, nor to grant special privileges, nor to interfere with the lives of individuals and their actions. Our country has obviously wavered far from this view, which was the view of our founders. While the idea of using government to help others may appeal to our altruistic side, the truth is that the State commits organized robbery and theft from those with wealth and – quite inefficiently – redistributes this wealth to those who have less as well as favoring the special interest lobbies. As we all know, this was the key failing of the Marxist USSR, and have resulted in the destruction of wealth in the Soviet bloc and among all other socialist societies.

However, I do believe Congress must try its best to uphold the contracts of past Congresses since they affect the lives and health of so many, especially the elderly who are retired or live on fixed incomes. However, no new promises of government charity should be made, and we must aggressively work to free future generations of this burden. Our country’s leaders and representatives should share the vision that the purpose of the current Welfare State should be to eliminate the need for its own existence. Although this will take years, citizens should elect officials that start with the end in mind, and have solid plans on how to get there, not those who insist on perpetuating the status quo.

7. 7. Sincerity

Th The citizens in my district should realize I am truly their sincere servant, and their needs are placed before my own. I will work tirelessly for them until I leave public service, and set an example by helping them by my own hand. Frequent face-to-face town halls and “Our Open Office” will ensure that I stay in honest and sincere touch with the concerns of residents in the area.

8. 8. Moderation

As As representative of the people in my district, I must shift my perspective to see the reasons behind the arguments of two parties with opposing viewpoints, and apply reason and moderation to the extremes in public conversation. This is the hallmark of the statesman I aspire to become on behalf of the people.

9. 9. Hard Work

Fr From my past experience as a chemical engineer, I am very self-confident in my ability to work hard. For the past three years, I have been based in Shanghai, China, where my key responsibilities were to help build and start-up a couple manufacturing cells, troubleshoot problems of all types, and most importantly help convince customers to qualify and purchase product from the new facility. As any true professional understands, your success is always intertwined with that of your colleagues. I’ve often had the pleasure of learning a lot from those much smarter than I. Although young in years at age 30, my life experiences have gifted me with loads of experience beyond most peers my age. Learning from plenty of my own mistakes (or what the wise term “experience”) is a harsher way to educate oneself, and much of my success came from a tireless work ethic to accomplish the goal.

As As Congressman, I plan to apply this same work ethic, and pledge to try to outwork all other representatives on Capitol Hill on behalf of the constituents in my district. I will take the trust of the public seriously, but I will also trust IN the public to inform me if I go astray.

10. 10. Courage

Someone once said of America: “The Republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it.” I will not let the Republic fall to today’s inept politicians – most of whom are moral cowards and men and women of no principle whatsoever, and are wealth destroyers to boot – who defile her without a bitter fight. Liberty will once again teeter on a knife’s edge in the months and years to come. Whether we fall to socialism, poverty, and endless debt for our children is now up to US. The choice is OURS.

11. Personal Responsibility

With great power comes great responsibility. A Congressman can vote to declare war, disburse funds from the public purse, regulate foreign trade, and decide monetary policy. These are all powers that carry grave responsibility. As a representative, I will be trusted by the public to vote on their behalf. This trust must never be betrayed, and I must be held personally accountable for my actions.

As a candidate and while in public office, by my own personal choice, I affirm I will not drink alcohol, smoke, or use drugs unless necessary for medical reasons. I believe that as a representative of the people, I should have a clear mind at all times. Citizens should not have to worry about their Congressman being influenced into backdoor DC deals by vices that change their state of mind. To elaborate, I will not drink any alcoholic beverage, smoke cigarettes, cigars, or marijuana, and certainly not use any drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc.

12. Gratitude

I’ve always thought that the three most important phrases in life to say are: “I’m sorry” “I love you” and “Thank you.” While sometimes these are also the toughest to voice, showing gratitude for the help of others is often the easiest to say, but also the easiest to forget. My father taught me the lesson to say “thank you” while I was a young child, and I strive to never forget it. Showing appreciation to others is a wonderful thing and as Oscar Wilde once said, “The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention.”

Jake Towne

2010 Candidate for U.S. Congress, PA-15

TowneForCongress.com

EMPLOYEE NOTIFICATION

Posted by pa on July 9, 2009 under E-Z News | 204Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/07/09/employee-notification/EMPLOYEE+NOTIFICATION2009-07-09+22%3A20%3A13pa

EMPLOYEE NOTIFICATION

FROM: WE THE PEOPLE (Hereafter knows as Employers)

TO: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS (Hereafter know as Employees)

DATE: Today and every day hereafter

SUBJECT: Job Performance

MEMO:

Negligent and/or questionable job performance of Employees has been brought to the attention of the Employers. To determine the validity and extent of the reported behavior, the Employers hereby extend notice to the Employees that for a period of time equal to the remainder of the term of employment (election cycle) the Employers will be undertaking a comprehensive review of any and all actions taken by Employees during said term of employment.

This review consists of, but is not limited to:

1. compliance to standards set forth in the employee handbook (The

Constitution of The United States) Employee must be able to quote section of handbook giving authority for each decision enacted.

2. review of executive decisions (voting record)

3. speeches

4. public appearances

5. monetary contributions received prior to and during term of employment that may have created an unacceptable bias towards the donor(s)

6. alliances or associations which may have negatively impacted decisions regarding standards set forth in employee handbook

Approximately two months prior to completion of the present term of employment, a complete evaluation of this review will be conducted by all Employers to determine if an employee will be retained for another term of employment.

Your co-operation during this review is greatly appreciated.

We The People

9/12 Candidate: Peg Luksik | U.S. Senate

Posted by pa on June 27, 2009 under 9/12 Candidates | 182Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/06/27/912-candidate-peg-luksik-state-senate/9%2F12+Candidate%3A++Peg+Luksik+%26%23124%3B+U.S.+Senate2009-06-28+04%3A13%3A00pa

Married to James Luksik, Peg is a Mom with six children and resides in Johnstown, PA.

Peg earned a BS in elementary and special education from Clarion University of PA, graduating Magna cum Laude in 1976. In 1997, Peg was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Humanities by Stonehill College in MA.

In 1977, Peg taught remedial education with learning disabled and/or emotionally disturbed students from elementary to college levels. Her teaching career continued through 1982.

From 1983 through 2006, Peg founded and was chairman of Mom’s House, Inc., a nationally recognized non-profit organization serving single parents and children.

Peg’s adult life has been dedicated to family oriented and educational issues including acting as Advisor to the Presidential Commission on the Family; grant reviewer for US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement; and was Founder of Pennsylvania/National Parent Commission.

In 1991, Peg was author of “Love, Mom” and in 1995, she authored “Outcome-based Education, the State’s Assault on our Children’s Values, with Pamela Hobbs Hoffecker (Huntingdon Press).

In 1997, she was host of “The Learning Curve”, a nationally broadcast live, weekly television program on NET television network .

Peg entered politics in 1990 when she was a candidate for Govenor in the Republican Primary in PA. In 1994 and 1998 Peg was an Independent Candidate for Govenor of PA and was an educational consultant to the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, DC.

From 2007 to the present, Peg has been Public Affairs Director for the Pro-Life Coalition of Pa and was a political consultant and campaign manager for William Russell for Congress.

Peg is well known in PA as a “no nonsense” political activist who advocates strong family values, the sanctity of life, conservative fiscal policies and a strong national defense.

Quoting Peg:

“As I have travelled the state in these past few months, I have been shocked by the level of anger I am finding. Anger at politicians who promise everything and deliver nothing. Anger at Washington for spending away the future of our children. Anger at fellow citizens over the apathy that got us here. And anger at ourselves for believing that everything was okay when we should have realized that it wasn’t.

As people continue to lose jobs, and the economy continues to crumble, it’s easy to get caught up in assigning blame – and then trying to get back at the person who gets the assignment. Understandable, but counter-productive. No amount of blame will change a single thing that got us to this position. But action can.

So, let’s resolve to change the old saying. Let’s not get mad, let’s get active. America is counting on us.”

More Information
Contract || Official Site

American Clean Energy and Security Act legislation passes House

Posted by pa on under E-Z News | 191Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/06/27/american-clean-energy-and-security-act-legislation-passes-house/American+Clean+Energy+and+Security+Act+legislation+passes+House2009-06-28+00%3A42%3A23pa

Late yesterday, the American Clean Energy and Security Act legislation was narrowly approved in the House.  The bill still must be approved by the Senate where it is still not clear if the democrats have enough votes to secure passage.

The bill passed by 7 votes broken down as follows:
Democrats  211 Ayes  44 Noes  No Vote 1
Republicans  8 Ayes 168 Noes  No Vote 2
Totals     219 Ayes 212 Noes  No Vote 3
Following are the eight Republicans who voted in favor of passage:

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

According to
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml
the 3 No Votes were:

Jeff Flake R (AZ)  202-225-2635
Alcee Hastings D (FL) 202-225-1313
John Sullivan R (OK)  202-225-2211

In my opinion, the following article from House Republican Lead John Boehner’s “Leader Alert” uncovers a definite lack of upholding Principles 3,6 and 9; and Values 1,4,5,6,7,8,and 11.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134491

“What You May Not Know About Speaker Pelosi’s National Energy Tax
More Mandates, More Regulations, and More Costs Than Ever Before
Washington, Jun 26 – Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is going to raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India.  This, we know.
It would be a bureaucratic nightmare overseen by a confusing web of government agencies that would take and redistribute trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls.  This, we also know.  Even Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) admitted in the Washington Post this morning that: “The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this is going to work.”  How encouraging.

But what don’t we know?  Here are some facts you may not know about Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax:

Homebuyers Beware.  Trying to save up for a new home?  You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase.  The Democrats’ bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California’s expensive new building codes for the entire nation.  Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats’ bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction.  A couple of years later, the Democrats’ bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement.  These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation.

Homebuilders Beware.  The Democrats’ bill imposes new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for homebuilders.  If your state refuses to accept the stringent and costly California building codes, the federal government may assess penalties.  And don’t get too comfortable with the new mandatory regulations because the Democrats’ bill allows for “consensus-based” codes to supplant those outlined in the bill.  So, as soon as you’ve invested your hard-earned money to comply with the bill’s mandates, the rug could get pulled from underneath you.  Translation?  You’ll pony up more and more money.

Home Sellers Beware.  Having a hard time selling your home?  Here’s one more hurdle to jump:  all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that’s outlined in the Democrats’ bill.  And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters?  Think again!  Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances.  So the Democrats’ bill would bring down the value of your home!

New Lights No Matter the Cost.  As early as 2012, the Democrats’ bill eliminates all existing lighting technology used in many outdoor lighting fleets (parking lots, stadiums, secured facilities like power plants and factories).  Just as an example, switching to the mandated technology in the bill will cost one small utility about $30 million in annual revenue.  So you now have to comply with the new mandates for new lighting?  Hold the phone.  It is not clear that a feasible alternative technology is available for every existing lighting application – regardless of cost – which could force some businesses to close.

The consequences of Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax for families and small businesses are real.  It will drive up energy costs, send millions of jobs to countries like China and India, and place an especially heavy burden on rural America.  There is a better way.  House Republicans have proposed the American Energy Act, legislation that represents the fastest route to a cleaner environment, lower energy costs, and more American jobs.  The legislation would:

Increase environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
Promote the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
Encourage increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.

Today’s vote on Speaker Pelosi’s ill-advised national energy tax will have consequences for every American.  It is a bad deal for America.  And the American people will remember how their Members of Congress vote.”

Obviously, this bulletin was written prior to the final vote but maybe it will be the incentive to have each and every one of us phoning, e-mailing, or faxing our senators to put enough pressure on them to stop this monstrosity before it is also passed in the Senate.

Faith and the American Founding: Illustrating Religion's Influence

Posted by pa on June 25, 2009 under E-Z News | 175Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/06/25/faith-and-the-american-founding-illustrating-religions-influence/Faith+and+the+American+Founding%3A+Illustrating+Religion%26%2339%3Bs+Influence2009-06-25+22%3A42%3A43pa

NOTE FROM PA:  A little long and a little old but so very pertinent

New 912candidates.org Partner

Posted by pa on June 23, 2009 under E-Z News | 172Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/06/23/new-912candidatesorg-partner/New+912candidates.org+Partner2009-06-23+20%3A59%3A42pa

912candidates.org is made up entirely of volunteers. We neither solicit nor accept donations. This allows each member to be guided by conscience. This program is not based on any party affiliation. We will, however, give recognition to a particular group that is helping us to further our cause – to find and support candidates for national, state or local office signing a morally-binding contract to uphold the 9 principles and 12 values to which we adhere. One such group is America’s Independent Party.

America’s Independent Party is a conservative pro-life political party that stands for constitutionally limited government, national sovereignty, secure borders, economic liberty, and a Reaganesque “peace through strength” national defense and foreign policy. America’s Independent Party endorses or nominates candidates for public office based on a proven adherence to constitutional principle, not mere party labels.

Tom Hoefling, National Party Chair; and Markham Robinson, National Vice-chair; have made a commitment to request (but not require) party candidates to sign the 912candidates contract.

We thank them for this commitment and greatly appreciate the faith they show in sharing our common goal.

Press Release – Patriot's Pipeline Radio Show

Posted by pa on June 22, 2009 under E-Z News | 158Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/06/22/press-release-patriots-pipeline-radio-show/Press+Release+-+Patriot%26%2339%3Bs+Pipeline+Radio+Show2009-06-22+20%3A58%3A02pa

PRLog (Press Release) – Jun 22, 2009 – The Patriot’s Pipeline Radio Show with David Hill and author and commentator Melissa Pehle-Hill.  The Patriot’s Pipeline is the Friday night broadcast from the Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting Network.  Our show highlights citizens and politicians who believe in our US Constitution and who have stepped up to the task of restoring the United States of America to the foundation laid down by our Founding Fathers.  
Show address is http://tinyurl.com/PHN06-26-09

Our June 26th show will feature R.J. Harris of Oklahoma and Dr. Rand Paul from Kentucky. Both of these gentlemen have signed the 9:12 Candidates Pledge to uphold the values and principles found in our Constitution.  The Hosts and Producers of the Patriot’s Pipeline strongly support the efforts of the 9:12 Candidates Project and their mission to find candidates who will uphold the Constitution should they gain public office.

RJ Harris
RJ is an Iraq war veteran, devout family man, and staunch constitutional
conservative.  He is running for US Rep. in Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District in 2010.  The first candidate to sign the official 912 pledge, Mr. Harris is dedicated to restoring a strict adherence to the Constitution in the halls of an out-of-control Federal Government.  
Here are some of RJ’s key proposals:

   * Balance the budget
   * End the govt. bailouts
   * Pay down debt
   * Restore the value of our Dollar
   * Shrink the size & scope of the Federal Govt.
   * Increase state sovereignty, especially in critical social issues
   * Create a more focused & cost effective national defense
   * Preserve America’s moral integrity by obeying the Constitution

A true Washington outsider, RJ Harris is excited to tackle the elite, political establishment.
Having served two combat tours in Iraq, RJ comprehends the true nature of sacrifice and intends on bringing this spirit of sacrifice to a Washington D.C. that has lost its way.

Dr. Rand Paul
Rand Paul is the third of five children. He grew up in a small town in Texas and attended Baylor University before leaving to go to Duke Medical School. Dr. Paul completed a General Surgery Internship at Georgia Baptist Medical Center in Atlanta and earned his ophthalmology residency at Duke University.
Dr. Paul is married to his loving wife, Kelley Ashby, of Russellville, KY. They have been married for 18 years and have three boys: Will 16, Duncan 13, and Robert 10.
Dr. Paul has owned his own business, performing eye surgery in Bowling Green, KY, for 18 years. He is also the founder of the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, an organization that performs eye exams and surgery for less fortunate patients.

Additionally, Dr. Rand Paul founded the Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) in 1994. KTU rates the state legislature’s tax honesty and helps promote the Americans for Tax Reform taxpayer pledge, to oppose any and all marginal income tax increases and any reduction in tax deductions.

Dr. Rand Paul delivered his first public speech in a debate with Senator Phil Gramm at the age of 21 in San Antonio. For his father’s Presidential campaign, Dr. Rand Paul traveled throughout ten different states. In December of 2007, he spoke to thousands of supporters at the historic Fanueil Hall in Boston on the day his father’s campaign set the record for most online donations in a single day.

Rand Paul is a career doctor, not a politician. His entrance into politics is indicative of his life’s work: a desire to diagnose problems, and provide practical solutions.

For more information visit http://patriotspipeline.ning.com

The Creation of the U S Constitution – Part 5-Conclusion

Posted by pa on May 27, 2009 under Education | 149Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/05/27/the-creation-of-the-u-s-constitution-part-5-conclusion/The+Creation+of+the+U+S+Constitution+-+Part+5-Conclusion2009-05-27+23%3A52%3A49pa

The Bill of Rights

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

The Document Enshrined

The fate of the United States Constitution after its signing on September 17, 1787, can be contrasted sharply to the travels and physical abuse of America’s other great parchment, the Declaration of Independence. As the Continental Congress, during the years of the revolutionary war, scurried from town to town, the rolled-up Declaration was carried along. After the formation of the new government under the Constitution, the one-page Declaration, eminently suited for display purposes, graced the walls of various government buildings in Washington, exposing it to prolonged damaging sunlight. It was also subjected to the work of early calligraphers responding to a demand for reproductions of the revered document. As any visitor to the National Archives can readily observe, the early treatment of the now barely legible Declaration took a disastrous toll. The Constitution, in excellent physical condition after more than 200 years, has enjoyed a more serene existence. By 1796 the Constitution was in the custody of the Department of State along with the Declaration and traveled with the federal government from New York to Philadelphia to Washington. Both documents were secretly moved to Leesburg, VA, before the imminent attack by the British on Washington in 1814. Following the war, the Constitution remained in the State Department while the Declaration continued its travels–to the Patent Office Building from 1841 to 1876, to Independence Hall in Philadelphia during the Centennial celebration, and back to Washington in 1877. On September 29, 1921, President Warren Harding issued an Executive order transferring the Constitution and the Declaration to the Library of Congress for preservation and exhibition. The next day Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam, acting on authority of Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, carried the Constitution and the Declaration in a Model-T Ford truck to the library and placed them in his office safe until an appropriate exhibit area could be constructed. The documents were officially put on display at a ceremony in the library on February 28, 1924. On February 20, 1933, at the laying of the cornerstone of the future National Archives Building, President Herbert Hoover remarked, “There will be aggregated here the most sacred documents of our history–the originals of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States.” The two documents however, were not immediately transferred to the Archives. During World War II both were moved from the library to Fort Knox for protection and returned to the library in 1944. It was not until successful negotiations were completed between Librarian of Congress Luther Evans and Archivist of the United States Wayne Grover that the transfer to the National Archives was finally accomplished by special direction of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Library.

On December 13, 1952, the Constitution and the Declaration were placed in helium-filled cases, enclosed in wooden crates, laid on mattresses in an armored Marine Corps personnel carrier, and escorted by ceremonial troops, two tanks, and four servicemen carrying submachine guns down Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues to the National Archives. Two days later, President Harry Truman declared at a formal ceremony in the Archives Exhibition Hall.

“We are engaged here today in a symbolic act. We are enshrining these documents for future ages. This magnificent hall has been constructed to exhibit them, and the vault beneath, that we have built to protect them, is as safe from destruction as anything that the wit of modern man can devise. All this is an honorable effort, based upon reverence for the great past, and our generation can take just pride in it.”

The Creation of the U S Constitution – Part 5

Posted by pa on May 26, 2009 under Education | 146Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/05/26/the-creation-of-the-u-s-constitution-part-5/The+Creation+of+the+U+S+Constitution+-+Part+52009-05-27+03%3A08%3A50pa

Part 5 of an informational series on the creation of the Constitution. This information is taken from the US National Archives & Records Administration website at www.archives.gov.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

Because of its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus of national attention. The positions of the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across the country. And passions in the state were most warm. When the Federalist-dominated Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum on September 29 to call a state ratifying convention, a Philadelphia mob, in order to provide the necessary numbers, dragged two anti-Federalist members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House where the bedraggled representatives were forced to stay while the assembly voted. It was a curious example of participatory democracy.

On October 5 anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his “Centinel” essays in Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer. Republished in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. “The United States are to be melted down,” Bryan declared, into a despotic empire dominated by “well-born” aristocrats. Bryan was echoing the fear of many anti-Federalists that the new government would become one controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally refined. The common working people, Bryan believed, were in danger of being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and inaccessible to the people. It was this kind of authority, he believed, that Americans had fought a war against only a few years earlier.

The next day James Wilson, delivering a stirring defense of the Constitution to a large crowd gathered in the yard of the State House, praised the new government as the best “which has ever been offered to the world.” The Scotsman’s view prevailed. Led by Wilson, Federalists dominated in the Pennsylvania convention, carrying the vote on December 12 by a healthy 46 to 23.

The vote for ratification in Pennsylvania did not end the rancor and bitterness. Franklin declared that scurrilous articles in the press were giving the impression that Pennsylvania was “peopled by a set of the most unprincipled, wicked, rascally and quarrelsome scoundrels upon the face of the globe.” And in Carlisle, on December 26, anti-Federalist rioters broke up a Federalist celebration and hung Wilson and the Federalist chief justice of Pennsylvania, Thomas McKean, in effigy; put the torch to a copy of the Constitution; and busted a few Federalist heads.

In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series of essays signed “Cato.” Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself, probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for an energetic national government. Thomas Jefferson later called the Federalist Papers the “best commentary on the principles of government ever written.”

Against this kind of Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties. Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-Federalists, “There was not a single character capable of uniting their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan whatever.” The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared, “These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!” Some newspaper articles, presumably written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists could control the government; the use of Inquisition-like torture could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope could be elected president.

One anti-Federalist argument gave opponents some genuine difficulty–the claim that the territory of the 13 states was too extensive for a representative government. In a republic embracing a large area, anti-Federalists argued, government would be impersonal, unrepresentative, dominated by men of wealth, and oppressive of the poor and working classes. Had not the illustrious Montesquieu himself ridiculed the notion that an extensive territory composed of varying climates and people, could be a single republican state? James Madison, always ready with the Federalist volley, turned the argument completely around and insisted that the vastness of the country would itself be a strong argument in favor of a republic. Claiming that a large republic would counterbalance various political interest groups vying for power, Madison wrote, “The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.” Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it.

Ratification

By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On February 6, with Federalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as “an idolater of popularity,” suddenly experienced a miraculous cure and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the remaining states later appended similar recommendations.

When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, “The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution.” Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets, highlighted by a 15-foot float called “Ship Federalist.” The symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.

On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York, received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had approved the Constitution. With South Carolina’s acceptance of the Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to ratify. The Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”

In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory.

The Creation of the U S Constitution – Part 4

Posted by pa on May 24, 2009 under Education | 138Be the First to Commenthttp://912candidates.org/pa/2009/05/24/the-creation-of-the-u-s-constitution-part-4/The+Creation+of+the+U+S+Constitution+-+Part+42009-05-25+03%3A16%3A34pa

Part 4 of an informational series on the creation of the Constitution. This information is taken from the US National Archives & Records Administration website at www.archives.gov.

The Great Compromise

Also crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion over representation was the North-South division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation. On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of “all other persons,” a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the “other people.” With this compromise and with the growing realization that such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates “that some general government should be established.” With the crisis over representation now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.

For the next few days the air in the City of Brotherly Love, although insufferably muggy and swarming with blue-bottle flies, had the clean scent of conciliation. In this period of welcome calm, the members decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw up a draft constitution. The convention would now at last have something on paper. As Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth went to work, the other delegates voted themselves a much needed 10-day vacation.

During the adjournment, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington rode out along a creek that ran through land that had been part of the Valley Forge encampment 10 years earlier. While Morris cast for trout, Washington pensively looked over the now lush ground where his freezing troops had suffered, at a time when it had seemed as if the American Revolution had reached its end. The country had come a long way.

The First Draft

On Monday August 6, 1787, the convention accepted the first draft of the Constitution. Here was the article-by-article model from which the final document would result some 5 weeks later. As the members began to consider the various sections, the willingness to compromise of the previous days quickly evaporated. The most serious controversy erupted over the question of regulation of commerce. The southern states, exporters of raw materials, rice, indigo, and tobacco, were fearful that a New England-dominated Congress might, through export taxes, severely damage the South’s economic life. C. C. Pinckney declared that if Congress had the power to regulate trade, the southern states would be “nothing more than overseers for the Northern States.”

On August 21 the debate over the issue of commerce became very closely linked to another explosive issue–slavery. When Martin of Maryland proposed a tax on slave importation, the convention was thrust into a strident discussion of the institution of slavery and its moral and economic relationship to the new government. Rutledge of South Carolina, asserting that slavery had nothing at all to do with morality, declared, “Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.” Sherman of Connecticut was for dropping the tender issue altogether before it jeopardized the convention. Mason of Virginia expressed concern over unlimited importation of slaves but later indicated that he also favored federal protection of slave property already held. This nagging issue of possible federal intervention in slave traffic, which Sherman and others feared could irrevocably split northern and southern delegates, was settled by, in Mason’s words, “a bargain.” Mason later wrote that delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, who most feared federal meddling in the slave trade, made a deal with delegates from the New England states. In exchange for the New Englanders’ support for continuing slave importation for 20 years, the southerners accepted a clause that required only a simple majority vote on navigation laws, a crippling blow to southern economic interests.

The bargain was also a crippling blow to those working to abolish slavery. Congregationalist minister and abolitionist Samuel Hopkins of Connecticut charged that the convention had sold out: “How does it appear . . . that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow men . . . Ah! these unclean spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets are spreading discord, and exciting men to contention and war.” Hopkins considered the Constitution a document fit for the flames.

On August 31 a weary George Mason, who had 3 months earlier written so expectantly to his son about the “great Business now before us,” bitterly exclaimed that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.” Mason despaired that the convention was rushing to saddle the country with an ill-advised, potentially ruinous central authority He was concerned that a “bill of rights,” ensuring individual liberties, had not been made part of the Constitution. Mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole question of the formation of a new government. Although Mason’s motion was overwhelmingly voted down, opponents of the Constitution did not abandon the idea of a new convention. It was futilely suggested again and again for over 2 years.

One of the last major unresolved problems was the method of electing the executive. A number of proposals, including direct election by the people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically expedient. The large states got proportional strength in the number of delegates, the state legislatures got the right of selecting delegates, and the House the right to choose the president in the event no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Mason later predicted that the House would probably choose the president 19 times out of 20.

In the early days of September, with the exhausted delegates anxious to return home, compromise came easily. On September 8 the convention was ready to turn the Constitution over to a Committee of Style and Arrangement. Gouverneur Morris was the chief architect. Years later he wrote to Timothy Pickering: “That Instrument was written by the Fingers which wrote this letter.” The Constitution was presented to the convention on September 12, and the delegates methodically began to consider each section. Although close votes followed on several articles, it was clear that the grueling work of the convention in the historic summer of 1787 was reaching its end.

Before the final vote on the Constitution on September 15, Edmund Randolph proposed that amendments be made by the state conventions and then turned over to another general convention for consideration. He was joined by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. The three lonely allies were soundly rebuffed. Late in the afternoon the roll of the states was called on the Constitution, and from every delegation the word was “Aye.”

On September 17 the members met for the last time, and the venerable Franklin had written a speech that was delivered by his colleague James Wilson. Appealing for unity behind the Constitution, Franklin declared, “I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.” With Mason, Gerry, and Randolph withstanding appeals to attach their signatures, the other delegates in the hall formally signed the Constitution, and the convention adjourned at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.

Weary from weeks of intense pressure but generally satisfied with their work, the delegates shared a farewell dinner at City Tavern. Two blocks away on Market Street, printers John Dunlap and David Claypoole worked into the night on the final imprint of the six-page Constitution, copies of which would leave Philadelphia on the morning stage. The debate over the nation’s form of government was now set for the larger arena.

As the members of the convention returned home in the following days, Alexander Hamilton privately assessed the chances of the Constitution for ratification. In its favor were the support of Washington, commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and the belief among many Americans that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. Against it were the opposition of a few influential men in the convention and state politicians fearful of losing power, the general revulsion against taxation, the suspicion that a centralized government would be insensitive to local interests, and the fear among debtors that a new government would “restrain the means of cheating Creditors.”