My Affirmation of Independence

When, through the passage of time and circumstance, it becomes necessary for a person or group to remove the bindings of a political organization—and in doing so re-assert their God given right to Liberty and their Constitutionally protected right of freedom of assembly—a decent respect for the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they explain the reasons for their separation.

Those words, a paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence, have weighed heavily on my mind this past week.  Also swirling in that cauldron of roiling thoughts are the words of Thomas Paine’s “Crisis”, the Holy Bible, and our beloved Constitution. The oath I took to defend that Constitution, and the promises I made to God to follow his Word, are always present, sitting as angels above a battlefield. The verdict on whether they be guardian or avenging angels remains unclear.

I am an elected delegate to the Republican National Convention of 2016. What has, in the past, been viewed as reward to loyal campaign foot-soldiers has been transformed into a charge to save the Republic—or at least the party. As the political rhetoric increases in histrionics, I urge perspective. While the threats from keyboard warriors should not be ignored, we need not fear an occupying army depriving us, or our families, of life and property. We do not face death on the battlefield or execution by the British government as our independence declaring forefathers did. Perspective is the handmaiden of reasoned argument.  We cannot allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by emotion driven battle cries to the extent that we ignore the facts.

I, as with the majority of my fellow delegates, was elected to represent the Republican voters of my state. They voted for me in precinct caucuses, legislative district caucuses, and at the state convention. I stood before them on all those occasions declaring that I supported a particular candidate for the Presidency of the United states and thereby implied my support for that candidate’s plans and principles.  There was no trickery or deceit in any of those elections. Furthermore, because my state’s convention was held after all other candidates dropped out of the race, those that voted for me that day were also informed that I was asking for their vote not as a representative of a candidate but as a protector of a conservative platform and as a champion of rules that empowered grass-roots activists.

The rules currently in effect in my state declare that each delegate shall be bound on the first ballot at the National Convention to vote in accordance with the results of our Presidential primary. Everyone who voted for me, and the rest of my delegation, understood this stricture. As I said before, I told the state convention delegates who voted for me that I went not as a representative of a candidate, but as a representative of conservatism and local party activists. I had, you see, resigned myself to casting a vote for the presumptive nominee.

I have read the rules of our state party and the standing rules of our Party.  As a student of history, I have re-visited the founding documents of our country and the precedents set at previous conventions. The experienced counsel of retired military men, delegates to previous conventions, and respected colleagues has been sought and freely given.  These are men and women with whom I have gladly served and would do so again without a moment’s hesitation.  We spoke of duty, honor, keeping your word, the bindings of party and the bindings of conscience.

Still, the angels circle. What is best for my party? What is best for my country? Will I be able to look in the mirror the day after that portentous nominating vote? Will I be able to explain my decision to my children? To God? Am I engaging in the very over-inflation of self and circumstance that I just warned against?

My conclusion—after these deliberations and subject to further influence and debate as reason dictates—is that I was elected to do a duty to the best of my abilities but as a free thinking person of good morals and education. That, having been entrusted not just with ferrying the results of the state primary to the floor of the convention, I was elected to cast votes according to the dictates of my conscience on matters of platform, rules, and the vice presidential nominee. Being entrusted to vote—without direct input from my constituency—on these matters is an implicit statement of trust in my ability to do so with the best interests of the members of this party in mind.

If -- having arrived at the conclusion that I have been directed to vote according to my conscience on these matters -- I am faced with a direct conflict when casting my vote for the presidential nominee, I then have to re-frame the debate.  Is our presumptive nominee the best reflection of our parties’ goals and dictates? Do I believe that this man has the best interests of our constituency at heart? Was the process that assigned delegates to vote for him evenly and justly applied? Is he the majority choice of our party? What are the arguments for affirming him as our nominee?  What are the arguments against that course of action?

By casting a vote on the rules of the convention—which will govern our party for the next four years as well—I am deciding how a future nominee should be chosen.  Again, I was given this task without specific instruction by the citizens of my district. I must vote my conscience and eliminate processes and rules that award candidates who subvert our ideals while penalizing those who represent the true beating heart of our organization: the grass-roots. If, having cast a vote to do so, I remove Rule 16 as an impediment to liberty and free association, I have effectively affirmed the right of delegates to vote as their conscience dictates.

Some of my fellow delegates may well decide that their conscience, and their honor, demands that they vote in accordance with the results of their state primary. That is their right. I cannot, having argued for their right to vote their conscience then deny them that right because I do not agree with the result. I only ask that they extend me the same courtesy.

The rules of the Republican Party nominating process are not infallible. They were meant to be debated and modified by party-member representatives. If a flawed process has selected a flawed candidate, I cannot in good conscience re-affirm those rules.  I cannot affirm that nominee. As I said before, I am open to further debate regarding whether or not I should vote for our presumptive nominee. I am resolved however in this matter: The delegates to the Republican National Convention are free men and women of conscience. We are the products of liberty and cannot be denied the right to vote accordingly.

The delegates ARE free, and I hereby declare my God-given right to that freedom.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Ted Cruz: Constitutional Conservative

Why I am Voting for Ted Cruz: Constitutional Conservatism

This is the first—and most important—reason that I am voting for him.  Immigration policy, a pro-life stance, thoughts on trade and defense are all important litmus tests for the Presidency.  They are things the President should do. Being an ardent, trained, Constitutional scholar, though, allows Cruz to know what the President can do.

Cruz’s website has a list of his Constitutional bona fides. Of note is the Supreme Court case Medellin v. Texas. In this case, Cruz argued that President Bush’s memorandum stating that the United States would “discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision” was not a binding, enforceable, federal law that could pre-empt state judiciary practices. In other words: Cruz successfully argued against Presidential over-reach of power and protected American sovereignty.  Please note the President in question was Republican George W. Bush—whom Cruz had worked for previously.  Yet despite his former employment by, and party affiliation with, the President, Cruz defended the rights of state courts against illegal Presidential actions.

If he is willing to fight the man whom he helped elect to the Presidency in order to defend the rights of states and citizens, that’s the kind of “Washington-outsider” I want as my President.

Cruz is a brilliant man.  He knows the Constitution, and Constitutional law, better than any candidate running for office. He has argued cases involving religious liberty, 2^nd Amendment rights, US and state sovereignty, and government over-reach.

In his arguments and speeches involving government over-reach, Cruz has demonstrated dedication to a  political ideal long suppressed in this country: That the rights of Americans are not handed down by the government but endowed by their Creator.  Government exists to protect rights, not decide them and then parcel them out to select sub-sets of the citizenry. 

I have always raged against the “gimme voters” that dominate the Presidential election cycles.  The President cannot make jobs, give you a cell phone, or prevent natural disasters.  He cannot even change your tax rate. The Constitution lists very specific duties of the Presidency.  You will not find a single mention about job creation in Article II—unless you are a justice or ambassador.  In matters of trade and foreign policy the President has certain powers but they are tied to approval by the Senate.  This is why I’ve always said that Congressional and local elections are more important than the Presidential race—Congress controls the pocketbook.  Their decisions have far more meaningful impacts on our day-to –day lives.

Now what a President can do is exert influence on the Congress in order to “push through” legislation.  The most recent example of this process would be Obamacare. The majority of Congressional members who voted on the bill had not even read it—but they decided their vote based on pressure from the President and his appointees. Let’s touch base to the point made earlier: Ted Cruz argued for states rights against an order by a Republican President.  Here is a man whose loyalty is to the Constitution and the people it is meant to defend. Given all of his previous works and words, I trust that President Cruz would not harangue and cajole the Congress into an act which violated those principles. Cruz trusts the American people to decide what is best for their families.  Trust is two way street, but DC politics have turned it into a one-way alley for too many years.

I trust Ted Cruz to live by his oath of office: to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Why I Am Voting for Ted Cruz: Forward

For the next few weeks I will be posting brief arguments for why I have decided to vote for—and campaign for—Ted Cruz. I want to be clear: my position that the race for the Presidency is an over-blown beauty pageant has not changed.  Congressional and local elections are more important to the lives of every-day Americans than Presidential elections. However, that argument only works when we have a President and Congress willing to abide by the Constitution. Sadly, that has not been the case for many years.

Senator Cruz enjoys the financial backing of many Americans, some of whom happen to have a great deal of money to spend on campaigns. You and I are not fortunate enough to have disposable income of that nature. Even a $25 donation to his campaign might strain your budget.  I’m here to tell you that asking questions, engaging in conversation, and spreading the Senator’s message are just as valuable as dollars during this stage of the campaign. By all means, if you can donate, please do so. However, please know that the donation the Senator really wants, and that I feel this country needs, is the donation of your endorsement today and your vote in the primary.

Information about Ted Cruz, his proposed policies, and his positions on issues, are taken directly from the Senator’s stump speeches and website.  https://www.tedcruz.org/  While I welcome your questions  and/or comments, I reserve the right to remove any comments on the blog or my Facebook page which are derogatory or slanderous.

I am not a paid member or official volunteer for the Cruz campaign.  All opinions expressed in this post and those that follow are my own unless otherwise attributed. I receive no financial remuneration for my endorsement.

Here is a tentative outline of my posts, each dealing with a specific issue or set of issues. I will update this post with links to the appropriate entries when they are posted.

1. Constitutional Conservatism

2. Foreign Policy & Defense

3. Foreign Policy & Immigration

4. Religious Liberty

5. Trade and the Economy

6. Right to Life

7. Tax policy

8. Education

Arizona Election Commission Decision

On June 29^th, 2015 the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Arizona’s commission to draw state Congressional districts was not a violation of Article I Section 4 of the US Constitution. This news drew frowns of concern from many a political and policy wonk, but barely a whisper from the general public. Sadly, the majority of the population was still chattering about the same-sex marriage ruling—oblivious to the fact that the “Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission” ruling will prove a far more troubling precedent to our every-day lives. 

I Tweeted and mentioned on Facebook my concerns over the ruling and was subsequently invited to speak on the issue for the July 1^st edition of “The Red Whine Show”. You can listen to the broadcast here: https://www.spreaker.com/user/altconradio/the-red-whine-show-7-1-2015

At first glance it would seem that this decision is a win for democracy, especially for grass-roots movements frustrated with establishment politics who entrench themselves through gerrymandered districts. As is all too often the case, the devil is truly in the details. The Commission was enacted via a ballot initiative, which succeeded 56%-44%, during the 2000 election. It was immediately challenged by the Arizona legislature as a clear violation of the US Constitution and has been tied up in the court system until the SCOTUS ruling in June of this year. The Commission’s stated purpose was to remove partisan politics from the redistricting process in order to prevent gerrymandering.  Again, an entirely noble goal and one that so simply stated should have passed by a far wider margin.

One of the reasons the vote was not a unanimous victory was due to well stated opposition that pointed out an essential flaw with the commission (beyond it’s blatant disregard for Constitutional law): that removing politics and party matters from an election process is not only counter-intuitive, but Quixotic.  The very make-up of the commission lends itself to partisan manipulation. The first four members are appointed by the four most powerful people in the Arizona state legislature—the very people the voters wanted removed from the redistricting process— the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, the Minority Party Leader of the Arizona House of Representatives, the President of the Arizona State Senate and the Minority Party Leader of the Arizona State Senate. Those four appointees will then choose a fifth and final member who will chair the commission.  Further rules include: no more than two of the members can be from the same political party or the same county. Persons would be eligible for membership on the commission if they meet certain voter registration requirements, and if during the last three years, they have not been candidates for public office or appointed to public office, except for school board members or officers, have not served as an officer of a political party or as an officer of a candidate's election committee and if they have not been a paid lobbyist.

The most naive of observers will note that changing a party registration is a simple matter that does not affect one’s actions once in office.  That makes the “balancing” of the parties on the commission nothing more than a sop to voters. Rules regarding previous employment are likewise little more than polite window-dressing. Nothing in the regulations state that a commission member cannot have been a member of a House or Senate member’s staff in the past three years, or even the last month! The three year time limit itself seems questionable also, as districts are re-drawn after every US Census, or, every ten years.  A member of Congress re-districted right out of his or her seat could very well strong arm his or her way onto the next commission and be within the rules.

After going through the mental gymnastics of creating a “non-partisan” election commission, the initiative then sets out rules for how districts are to be drawn.  Again, these, at first glance, sound perfectly reasonable and eminently democratic.

1. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. 2. Both legislative and congressional districts shall be equal in population, to the extent practicable. This establishes a new strict population equality standard for legislative districts. 3. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous, as much as practical. 4. District boundaries shall respect "communities of interest," as much as practical. 5. District lines shall follow visible geographic features, and city, town and county boundaries and undivided "census tracts" as much as practical. 6. Political party registration, voting history data and residences of incumbents and other candidates may not be used to create district maps. 7. "Competitive districts" are favored if competitive districts do not significantly harm the other goals listed.

Well, #1 is already void but we’ll review that in just a moment. Points 2 and 3 seem reasonable enough. Number 4 however gets dicey, as “communities of interest” starts fiddling with VRA language. Also, do you respect communities of interest more than keeping districts compact geographically? What’s the priority there?  The real quandary, though, comes with points #6 and #7.  In fact, #7 directly contradicts #6 because you cannot have a “competitive district”, or even know that a district IS competitive without analyzing voting history data. To be honest, these guidelines sound like they were written by a 7^th grade social studies class trying to create the perfect democracy and without any idea of how our democratic Republic actually works.

Finally we come to the most glaring issue: all of this is in direct contradiction of the US Constitution. I feel like the lady in the insurance commercial telling her friend “That’s not how it works! That’s not how any of this works!”  When we need to decide how to draw Congressional districts there is (or, there was) very simple guidance:

Article I Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations

A ballot initiative is not a legislature, it is a plebiscite. Sadly, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, decided to go on an erroneous tangent about the history of democracy in America rather than address the clear language and Constitutional precedent regarding Article I. She cherry-picks quotes from historians to claim that “the Framers would not have imagined the modern initiative process in which the people’s legislative power is coexistent with the state legislatures.” Firstly, I do believe the Framers were intimately aware of plebiscites and their power—and they were rightly afraid of the “whims of mob rule”. Secondly, we are a democratic, legislative, Republic.  We are not a democracy. The Right Honorable Justice needs to review not only her early American History but her basic civics. Allowing fundamental changes in the framework of government to be enacted by a basic ballot initiative is a dangerous road to travel.

Which is why, of course, the Framers of the Constitution made sure that the process for amending the Constitution required strenuous debate and agreement by a super-majority of elected representatives in either the Congress or a convention of states.  They’d lived through the tumultuous pre-Revolutionary days in Boston and Philadelphia, when it seemed a riot might break out at a single word. Although the world had not yet witnessed the rise of populist demagogues in the French Revolution, or in Nazi Germany, Madison and Morris knew well the power of words upon men’s souls.  They were determined to prevent “mob rule” and let “cooler heads prevail” through series of “checks and balances” not only in the system of government itself, but in the very document which outlined and defined the government.

The sad fact of the Arizona decision, and why I say that it affects our every-day lives far more than the same-sex marriage ruling, is that it has de-facto removed the need to amend the US Constitution.  After all, the original text of Article I had US Senators being appointed by state legislatures.  That was changed by the 17^th Amendment. The idea to have a popular election of Senators was first introduced in the 1820’s but the amendment movement didn’t gain steam until the turn of the 20^th century. The 17th Amendment in it's final form was finally introduced in 1911 and fully ratified in April of 1913. How sad that the supporters went through all that trouble, when all they need to have done was have a plebiscite and then a Supreme Court decision that re-interpreted the meaning of “legislature”!

Once again, we have a SCOTUS ruling that “interprets” clear language to fit the demands of the current populace. But it is not a majority of Americans who demanded that their legislators be removed from the redistricting process.  It was not, even, a super-majority (2/3) of those voting in Arizona during the 2000 election. Because of how precedence works in American law, though, there is now an opening for other states to follow suit, not just on this matter but a host of others.

We are increasingly ruled by the dogmatic whims of nine unelected persons rather than by the careful, reasoned debate of our elected representatives. (Yes, I know that careful, reasoned, debate out of Washington is hard to come by these days. At least we have recourse when they fail so spectacularly at their jobs.)  If we, the people, are so offended by the gerrymandered districts in our states and commonwealths, we have a duty to vote those who drew those districts out of office.  Sadly, for the people of Arizona, that is no longer an option.  Citizens of Arizona no longer have a say in who draws their voting districts, and there is, now, nothing stopping your state from doing the exact same thing. 

I don’t know about you, but some un-elected, un-accountable, partisan hack deciding how, when, and who I get to vote for scares me a whole hell of a lot more than whom my neighbor might decide to marry.

Source Links:
http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Creation_of_a_Redistricting_Commission,_Proposition_106_%282000%29

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/supreme-court-decision-in-arizona-redistricting-case/1609/

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment17.html

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1.html