Category Archives: The Vote

Uncategorized, General, Education, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

American Majority–On the Candidate track, part 1

This entry is part 1 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionChris Faulkner of Faulkner Strategies out of Indianapolis led the Candidate track for the American Majority training.  I am impressed to see that there are about 30 people who are taking this track our of the 50+ who are in attendance.  Some of these people are support or campaign staff/volunteers, but the numbers are encouraging, nevertheless.

The opening session of this track is on the development of the campaign plan to ensure success.   Faulkner opened with what I found to be refreshing:  Create your entire campaign plan in PowerPoint utilizing a maximum of 10 slides!  He is now breaking down the overall plan with five major areas that must be focused upon, with questions the candidate must be asking themselves and their campaign in order to make sure they are on the right track.

He is discussing the necessity of fleshing out the administration and committee aspects of the campaign, the message you are delivering and how to deliver it, how to position both yourself and your opponent for maximum benefit for your campaign, how to structure the campaign budget to meet your goals and prepare for unexpected expenses, create your finance committee and asks for contributions, how to set vote goals and know how to sift the information to create accurate benchmarks and targets, how to effectively get out the vote in an era of early voting (in Ohio, voters can cast ballots 35 days prior to the election) and setting GOTV timelines for the greatest impact.

A former Marine machine gunner trainer, Faulkner’s presentation is engaging, lively and filled with significant pieces of information that are very helpful for those seeking to be effective candidates.


General, Education, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Uncategorized

American Majority–Building Coalitions

This entry is part 2 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionThe AM staff began the session by describing what a coalition is (individuals or organizations coming together to address a common issue, who have common interests and values) and why they form (for solving a problem, naturally!)

Discussion centered around purposeful coalition building–creating a roadmap for success, with clear planning for identifying the issue, growing the group intelligently, creating the vision for the solution, establishing clear targets for success, planning the specific strategies, and implementing.  One thing that wasn’t discussed was having a post-issue analysis to certify that the goals were actually met.

Credibility and authority of the group and leaders was noted as being critical to the foundation for success of any coalition.  In order to be effective, the coalition leadership have to be visible and accessible, and be able to accurately assess the depth of the network,  broaden and deepen the network (including direct methods and social networking options),  and mobilize and motivate your volunteers and core membership.

Examples of effective tools for reaching the community you are wanting to impact was discussed, from the traditional word of mouth to getting earned media, from petitioning to fundraising events to educate and connect more people to your cause, from networking to building and deepening relationships.  All of these tools and options are going to be explained in more detail during the activist training break out sessions (of which I will bring you information after the event).

A thought struck me during this presentation, especially during the part on networking:  No time was allowed for participants at this event to introduce themselves and to let others know who is in attendance.  Maybe this will happen before the lunchtime “networking”.  We’ll see.

General, Education, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Uncategorized

American Majority–Training for Solutions

This entry is part 1 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionI am going to be blogging live today from the American Majority Candidate and Activist training class, being held on the campus of Otterbein College.  The morning has started well, as the staff of AM provided coffee and pastries for such an early starting event!  They also are providing professional-quality training materials, and I was impressed to see that the training booklets are specific to the state of Ohio’s elections laws, not just a generic template booklet.

About 25 people are already here, with an anticipated attendance of 40+.  I already recognize a number of people, including former legislators and community activists, along with folks who may never have before been engaged in the civic arena except for dutifully marching to the polls in general (and maybe primary) elections.  The current political and policy climate, along with the energizing effects of tea parties, 912 movements and the like, have indeed “brought people out of the woodwork.”

Their brochure outlines the “Problem”:  “In recent months, how often have you asked yourself, ‘What happened to the conservative movement?  Why isn’t America reflecting the basic principles on which she was founded?’  Government is too big, too bureaucratic, spends too much money, and doesn’t spend it wisely.  Few of our elected officials, regardless of party, are doing anything to change it.  In fact, through earmarks and increased regulation, they are only making the problem worse.  We need citizens engaged and candidates worth voting for…”

The training being offered today is to bring one solution to the above-stated problem.  I will be sitting in on the “candidate” track, as the activist track is well documented in the training manual for that track, and I will be discussing that track later.  The opening session, for both tracks, is “Building Effective Coalitions.”   As the opening session starts, there are about 50 people now present.  Looks like a great turnout and a hopeful glimpse of the future.

Uncategorized, General, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, The Vote

Federal judge temporarily halts Ohio’s version of “Millionaire’s Amendment”

blind-justiceToday, United States District Court Judge Edmund A. Sargus issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s office, as a result of a complaint filed against the Secretary and the Ohio Elections Commission by Republican Secretary of State candidate Sandra O’Brien.  The complaint challenges the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code section 3517.103, the “personal funds expenditure” section of Ohio’s election laws.

O’Brien’s complaint asserts that her rights of freedom of speech and of association under the 1st and 14th Amendments are violated by the enforcement of this provision of Ohio law.   The TRO was granted, prohibiting Brunner from accepting a “Declaration of No Limits” (Ohio Revised Code 3517.102) from O’Brien’s Republican primary opponent, Senator Jon Husted.

O’Brien puts her opposition to the issue in this way:  “The Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Elections Commission must take into consideration that they are out of step with the prevailing precedent from our highest court; and Ohio’s election law in this instance must be challenged.”  O’Brien refers to the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Davis v. FEC, which overturned the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, that set up a similar, but less restrictive provision in federal law regarding the use of personal funds in a contested race.

O’Brien is represented by attorney David Langdon, who stated “This law sets up a scheme of discriminatory contribution limits, keeping a candidate or their families from being able to support their relative, while allowing the opponent in the race unlimited access to special interest contributions as a “solution” to a dubious ‘problem'”.

Judge Sargus has directed the state to respond by noon on Friday, August 21st.  The case is O’Brien v. Brunner, number 09-cv-733.

Here are copies of the complaint and temporary restraining order.

Private Property, Commentary, The Vote, Economics, Uncategorized, General, Education, Events

Mark Mix–National Right to Work Committee: Labor Unions–Organized Socialism

This entry is part 24 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4The luncheon speaker for Freedom21 today is Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Committee.   His engaging talk today focused on how the involuntary collection of union dues is used as a financial prop for candidates who oppose Constitutionally-limited government and the principles of freedom.  Mix noted that the motto of his organization is “Everyone should have the right to join a union, but no one should be compelled to join.”

He talked about the profound impact a period, yes the punctuation mark, has had on our country.  In relation to the National Labor Relations Act, the language that would give the rights to defer from being compelled to join a union was not ended with a period, but with a qualified exemption statement which spelled out the compulsory right of unions to require membership.

Right to work was passed in 1947 as a corrective to the problems created in the 1935 NLRA.  It allowed states to outlaw forced unionism , and 22 states have done so (no, Ohio hasn’t exercised this option).  Data shows that overall economic vitality is improved in states which have exercised the right to work option, and those states have increased residency migration to the state as well.

There are some significant interests who have a vested interest in forced unionism and the involuntary payment of dues to the union (forced unionism is a $20 billion/year business, and is growing yearly).  This economic muscle is being utilized politically at this point to try to eliminate the ability to keep union organizing votes as secret ballots (the card check legislation).  A large proportion of this is to push forced unionism on all workers, and a provision in it would require government officials to mandate terms of contracts if an agreement cannot be reached between the union and the employer within 120 days, which would give the union leaders unprecedented leverage to demand massive concessions.  The president of the SEIU union knows that passage of this bill will expand union numbers by 1.5 million per year for the next 10 to 15 years.  Even if mandatory dues would only be $35 per year, it equates to a massive influx of money for the union leaders to use to further centralize control over both employers and the employees they supposedly represent.

Mix notes the big prize they are seeking is First Contract Arbitration, which would mandate the above 120 day time limit, and would prevent any renegotiation of the contract for at least two years.  Mix also noted that the ability to force individuals to contribute to an agenda with which they by and large disagree with, with no voice in how such practices should be done, is the essence of socialism.


Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Economics

Black Eye On Westerville- The Aftemath

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Black Eye On Westerville

Our dollars under assault from greedy governments

…He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people…imposing taxes on us without our consent…

Declaration of Independence- 1776

NEWSFLASH to all governing bodies! There is a finite limit of income that is available to be taxed. Theoretically it is 100% of income. Practically, it is a significantly lower percentage of income.

We only feel the need to point this fact out because it is clear that a new tidal-wave of taxation is currently being generated at all levels of government. The excuses are myriad. The effects will be devastating, as are all tax increases especially during economic downturns.

So why all the talk of tax increases when Westerville residents just voted themselves, a majority of them anyway, a 15% tax-cut? Well, not so fast. It is probably just a temporary reprieve if events in Columbus are any indicator.

During the recent Westerville Income tax increase campaign we asked the question repeatedly- What’s the next bite of the apple? When it became legal for cities to charge residents an income tax it was sold to residents initially as a very small bite of the apple which would eliminate the need for the hated (and unbiblical) city portion of the property tax and piggy-back sales taxes. Most municipalities went for a 0.25-0.5% income tax, promising that this would be more than enough to run the city in perpetuity. The cities would never have to ask for more to run at current levels of government. And that’s the rub. Governments used new revenues to grow far larger and more intrusive than any of those early residents who foolishly voted in income taxes could possibly have imagined.

Not so city planners, professional city managers and other government “experts” who have college degrees in such “progressive” fields as Urban Planning, Regional Governance, Public Affairs, etc. The dream of 19th century “progressive visionaries” is now the nightmare of 21st century urban and suburban tax-slaves. It has been only since the mid-20th century that progressives in small to medium-sized cities created and seized de facto control of zoning and planning commissions, which were originally promoted as bodies designed to protect the freedom of use and value of private property. In fact, they have become agents of modern-day government feudal lords, dictating such matters of grave importance as street curb-cuts (vital to the survival of businesses on a street; if you’re in doubt please examine the state of business in the Morse Rd and Rt. 161 “business” corridors in Columbus which have a system of virtually inaccessible “access” roads, another sign of city tyranny; these areas are also dying or virtually dead zones) grass length, the color of house paint used, the storage of boats and other extra vehicles, the type and placement of fences and even the replacement of hot-water heaters. This kind of intrusion costs money and bureaucracies must come up with new revenues to pay armies of bureaucratic “inspectors.” Hence the wave in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s of income-tax increases to the 1% level. Again, that was all that the cities would ever need.

As city governments continued to grow in size, cost and intrusiveness yet more revenue became necessary. And as the resistance to tax increases grows the tactics of city leadership becomes more sophisticated and demonstrative of their desire to thwart the will of a majority of taxpayers (as opposed to the majority of voters, an extremely important distinction). As this article in the Columbus Dispatch demonstrates, cities like Columbus and Westerville use a combination of “special” election dates, usually in August to minimize voter turnout, and targeting voters who are most likely to vote for tax increases and vote in every election no matter when (the dreadful PROS 2000 campaign in Westerville used an August “special election” date with the same targeted voter strategy). Selected quotes from the article-

On the night of the election, Coleman called it the most sophisticated campaign in which he had been involved…

Brad Sinnott, central committee chairman for the Franklin County Republican Party, said timing trumped strategy for tax-backers.

“There’s no doubt part of their strategy was to get this through in a low-turnout, midsummer election.”

Of course, the city denies that election timing is a legitimate complaint-

But city officials insist that they scheduled an August election not for political advantage but because they need the money now.

Of course, that argument crumbles under the weight of the revelation that voter turnout was not encouraged but that…

The campaign’s target audience was the small pool of voters who never miss an election, no matter what time of year it takes place.

Was the strategy successful? Clearly it was, since a grand total of 8.4% of the registered voters (52% of the 16.2% of registered voters, again, NOT taxpayers, who voted) in Columbus were able to impose a 25% tax increase on the residents of Columbus who pay taxes and, worse, non-resident taxpayers who are completely disenfranchised in municipal elections despite paying most of the taxes. And Columbus utilized the implied promise of continued expansion of social welfare spending to entice voters who pay little or nothing in taxes but receive the benefits to vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

As we have pointed out repeatedly here on this blog, cities long ago slipped into the same form of tyranny that American colonists so courageously resisted in the 1760’s through the 1780’s; over-regulation of the backbone of any economy, the small local business (a rapidly disappearing entity in Columbus), and taxation without representation. As noted in the quotations from the Declaration of Independence, taxes are being imposed without the consent of a significant percentage of the taxed. In fact, 42% of non-resident taxpayers (!) pay 53% (!) of Columbus income taxes (reference here) though they cannot vote and have no say in city government. Westerville’s numbers are similar.

What does this increase in Columbus mean to communities surrounding it? Since Westerville employed an absurd “Tax Fairness” argument, based on Westerville residents who had to pay Columbus and Westerville taxes, in their recent successful campaign to both increase the city income tax and shift the whole burden to a minority of taxpayers who both live and work in the city of Westerville (absurdity exposed here) it is conceivable that Westerville could come back to the voters to demand, in the name of “fairness,” that a new 25% tax increase MUST be passed by taxpayers (a majority of whom would be exempt from the increase, just like the last initiative). Since the city is busy using its windfall from the recent tax hike to hire zoning and planning “inspectors” and other bureaucrats to harass churches over building occupancy permits and businesses who want to remodel buildings for occupancy, buy every dilapidated or limited-use building that comes on the market thus squeezing even private small rental businesses aka taxpayers out of the market, just like they did, for instance, to the Westerville Athletic Club and taking them off the tax roles therefore cutting revenues, and otherwise throwing good money after bad on schemes that will destroy the business viability of the south side of town by imposing a Rt. 161 style “access” road ghetto upon its temporary occupants, it will probably find that it needs more revenue sooner than later and the “tax fairness” argument may have to be dusted off and modified for another run despite promises to the contrary. Think in terms of Westerville Public Schools who now claim they “need” nearly 8 additional  mills to run the new Taj Mahals they have recently built or between $400 and $600 additional dollars per year from the average Westerville School District homeowner.

What should be done about this mess? Well, the first step is at least being considered. The Columbus Dispatch reports here about a bill that would allegedly restrict the use of “special elections” for the purposes of getting around higher voter turnouts. We think the bill in question is Ohio House bill HB 260 but we don’t know for sure, since the atrociously written story in the Dispatch gives exactly NONE of the important details like the bill number, the sponsors or any serious attempt at analysis in depth.

The second and most important step will require, frankly, a great deal of time, effort and money to get done. The cities and those eager to use the current taxation structure of the cities for the purpose of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through disenfranchised taxation (taxation without representation) will never allow the next step without a major fight. That is, either allowing all TAXPAYERS into a city’s treasury the right to vote in city elections, including tax initiatives, and requiring a number of non-resident representatives in City Councils proportional to non-resident revenue derived or, more simply, outlawing the collection of taxes from those who have no say in city government. No city will be willing to swallow either option (they will immediately hide behind The Ohio Constitution’s “Home Rule” provision) without a fight and no state legislators, being political animals, have stepped up to offer any relief to agrieved taxpayers mostly because they are more frightened of the reactions of cities and corporate campaign donors than they are of the mostly quiescent taxpayers who aren’t currently raising a stink.

A state constitutional amendment initiative will almost undoubtedly be required to fix this. It would be a real down and dirty political slugfest, complete with charges of greed and racism. There would be no major corporate support, since major corporations rely on the tax abatements and other city bribes to buy their support and loyalty. When cities are restricted from collecting taxes from non-residents they will have to cancel the 100’s of millions of dollars in tax abatements that corporations enjoy statewide. Major corporations will put millions into the effort to stop the initiative. The campaign will be dirty and ugly. Corporatate management likes the idea that their employees are forced to pay their property taxes in their stead and without their consent.They hate the idea that employees might figure out that they operate on few if any property taxes while their employees are milked with the help of corporate management who donate to the campaign funds to pass the taxes. Politicians will line up at the corporate trough to collect money that will flow like water in an all out effort to stop the attempt to make them pay their property taxes. Many politicians that conservatives thought were their friends will be exposed as phoneys more interested in re-election than fighting the tough fight to restore truly fair taxation.

Here is a Columbus Dispatch article from late July indicating that 95% of Columbus Issue 1 campaign funds came from corporate donors, among them highly tax abated companies like Nationwide Insurance, Grange Mutual Insurance, Limited Brands, NetJets, Corna-Kokosing Construction, Wolfe Enterprises and, surprise, surprise the Dispatch Printing Company, not to mention several engineering firms, all of whom benefit while their employees suffer. The thousands they donated is a small investment against the millions they don’t pay in taxes. The same holds for smaller cities which line up corporate donations in order to maintain tax abatements.

We don’t tell you this to scare you away from the battle. We are being realistic. It will require real time and effort to get this problem fixed and there will be a lot of hard feelings and possibly jobs lost as employees are fired by major corporations for supporting the effort to make them pay the taxes they have maneuvered cities into waiving. It would have to be a true grass roots effort. Are you mad enough for that, yet?

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Weepin’ George- “I’ll Whine To The End Of My Career”

Don't be scared! It's just another RINO!George Voinovich is nothing if not consistent. If he’s not crying over the confirmation of UN ambassadors then he’s whining about tax cuts or his lower lip quivers at the idea that United States citizens might be permitted to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in more than just their home state. Now comes the report that Weepin’ George can hardly contain his emotions over the state of the Republican party. While this author also marvels over the shambles that state and national party leadership have made of the Republican party our analysis of why could not be further from Sen. Voinovich’s.

According to this CBS (pronounced “See? BS!”) Political Hotseat report George is blubbering that the reason that Republicans keep losing presidential and state and national re-election races is because the Republican party is “being taken over by southerners.” According to CBS, Voinovich believes that “shrinking demographics and southern senators are alienating his conservative constituents.” And this is where Voinovich and Republican party leadership, both in Ohio and nationally, run off the rails, crash and burn like a munitions train. What is alienating conservatives is most assuredly NOT southern conservatives. Voinovich says “[Southern politicians] get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr…People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?'” (so much for the end of regional stereotyping and bigotry on the part of national office holders).

Wrong, George and while we’re at it wrong, Kevin DeWine, who never misses an opportunity to mis-read the political will of Ohio’s conservative voters. It’s a near certainty that Kevin De Wine will issue some kind of rambling drivel that attempts to use Voinovich’s whimpering as an excuse to further alienate “values voters.” We can see an example of De Wine’s political tin-ear in his attempts to shove his uncle and former US Senator Mike De Wine down the throats of Ohio voters.  Thanks, but we already choked on him and the experience was not one we wish to repeat, as his defeat at the hands of Sherrod Brown, a flaming Marxist, demonstrated in spades.

What the conservative base is saying, by staying home and refusing to vote for the Hobson’s choice of a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican handed to conservative voters year after year (think John McCain), is that they demand more Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns, not fewer and they want them to run in their own states so that they can safely return to the polls without seriously endangering their first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth ninth and tenth amendment rights. Even George Voinovich hasn’t voted to destroy the third amendment-  yet (if you don’t know what right this one guarantees then read it here). And don’t kid yourself. The reason that liberal Republican candidates are being defeated is because conservative voters are staying home. Hence, the whining about conservative “disloyalty” from Ohio party leaders who themselves defected in droves in the 2006 gubernatorial election to Ted Strickland and actively worked to undermine the Ken Blackwell campaign in a bid to destroy him and his conservative supporters politically. These “leaders” can look in the mirror to see the cause of the Republican party loss of Ohio to the Democrats in the presidential race in 2008

The article also quotes Tim Pawlenty, liberal Republican governor of Minnesota whose lack of intestinal fortitude in the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election resulted in the most blatant election theft since the Republican party stole the presidential election of 1876 from President Samuel J. Tilden, as lamenting that the Republicans are losing the ability to “…compete in the Northeast, we are losing our ability to compete in Great Lakes states, we cannot compete on the West Coast, we are increasingly in danger of competing in the mid-Atlantic states, and the Democrats are now winning some of the Western states. Indeed, the Republicans can’t compete when they try to become more liberal than Democrats, especially when Democrats are beginning to successfully run “blue dogs” in conservative districts who are more conservative and, as the health care debate demonstrates, have considerably more political backbone than their Republican opponents.

Good-bye, George in 2010 and good riddance! Now if only the Republicans can only come up with a better candidate for the Senate than constitutional flim-flammer Rob Portman (more on that later).

Commentary, Life Issues, The Vote, Biblical Worldview, Education, Events, Private Property

Camp American- Class Samples and a Special Offer!

calogoIt will come as no shock that the Institute For Principled Policy is involved in biblical worldview education for young men and women. You only need to look at our Divisions and About Us pages to see that education in biblical worldview is one of our main functions.

In keeping with our commitment to solid biblical worldview education the Institute partners with groups whose specialty is biblical worldview training on issues like government, economics, critical thinking skills, history, etc.

Every year the Institute partners with Camp American, a non-partisan, non-denominational Christian worldview and recreation summer camp which specializes in the Institute’s target areas. Several of Camp American’s teachers over the last few years have been members of the  Institute For Principled Policy’s board.

And we’re doing it again this year. From June 14-20, 2009 Camp American is being held at Pokagon State Park in Angola IN. Among the teachers from the Institute For Principled Policy will be Executive Director Barry Sheets and Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis, who is also Executive Director of Camp American. Other teachers include Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, Pastor David Whitney head instructor of the Institute On The Constitution, Mark Harrington of the midwest office of the Center For Bio-ethical Reform,  Dr. Charles Rice Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School and Charlie Smith, a political consultant from Pennsylvania.

You might be asking what Camp American’s classes are like. Here are some short excerpts ofclasses taught last year at Camp American

First, a class on the religuious and philosophical foundations of the Founders taught by Institute Executive Director Barry Sheets

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egg2SfJmdoo[/youtube]

Next is a class taught by Institute Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis on the Electoral College

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh97UZa8SNQ[/youtube]

Third is a class taught by Pastor David Whitney of the Institute On The Constitution on the rights and responsibilities of a fully informed jury

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmVsy7g4E0[/youtube]

Last (but definitely not least) is a class on property rights, globalism and globa warming taught by Dr. Michael Coffman CEO of Environmental Perspectives, Inc.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgmmPFOjdEg[/youtube]

If you want to attend there’s a special offer for our blog readers. You can sign up for Camp American on their online store and you can use a special coupon designed for our readers that you can use to get a $50 discount at checkout. The coupon is IPP. Don’t wait. Spaces will fill up.

The Vote, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

The Return of “Divided Sovereignty”

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

constitutionThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. -James Madison in Federalist 51

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.- The Virginia Resolution of 1798

At least 20 states are currently crafting or holding hearings on legislative resolutions that re-asserts the original jurisdictions and powers guaranteed to them in the 9th and, especially, 10th amendments (quote above).

And now that list has expanded to include Ohio. Just this week (Wednesday March 18, 2009) House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 11 was introduced into the Ohio House. Virtually all of the resolutions in the various states cite what has become in the last century or so the largely forgotten 10th amendment to the US Constitution. All of the various state resolutions have slightly different language and motivation behind them, according to the needs of the individual state.

In Oklahoma, for instance, the underlying motivation is the attempt by the federal government to force Oklahoma to allow a NAFTA superhighway (actually a HUGE multi-lane car, truck, rail, communication corridor under international control; just imagine being pulled over for going 66 in a 65 zone by a law enforcer who answers not to some local elected body but an unelected international board and may not even be an American citizen) that allows foreign rail and trucking, beginning in Central America and terminating at a hub in Canada, onto US territory without benefit of Customs inspection until they reach the main terminal in Kansas City (no terror threat to see here; move along), to cut a huge swath through the center of the state. Of course, the federal government has been busy denying that any such corridor actually exists.

Unfortunately, Texas Department of Transportation let the cat out of the bag a couple of months ago by holding a press conference to announce that Texas’ portion of the project that never existed had been canceled by popular demand of Texas residents. Enterprising Texans had gotten control of local and regional zoning and planning boards and simply refused to allow the corridor permission to begin construction within the confines of their jurisdiction. This was forcing an exceptionally large detour in the highway (3 counties or so). Further information can be obtained by purchasing DVD’s of last July’s Freedom 21 Conference in Dallas TX, available here. The details of this was one of the best presentations at Freedom 21 last year. This year’s looks to be at least as good.

In Ohio the fulcrum is unfunded federal mandates. This is a brilliant move on the part of the drafters. The drafters also wisely cite Article IV, sec. 4 and the 9th Amendment of the US constitution. Article IV, sec. 4 guarantees each state a separate republican form of government, meaning that each state has the right of self-determination through the action of its duly elected representation. The 9th Amendment states that men have many more inherent rights than are mentioned in the bill of rights and that the fact that they are not mentioned does not mean they may be usurped by an omnipotent federal leviathan but are to be protected as strenuously as the others which have been mentioned. This has become an extremely important consideration but has been virtually ignored since the War between the States.

“OK,” you might be saying, “but why is this such an important consideration?” The answer lies in the Virginia Resolution, quoted above. Passed immediately following the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts, federal laws which openly violated the 1st and 5th Amendment protections of the right of free speech and press and the right to due process of law. Virginia and Kentucky each passed resolutions declaring their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendment and furthermore declared their intention to interpose on behalf of citizens of their own states whose rights were being trampled by means of federal usurpation.

It is interesting to note that the word interposition has virtually disappeared from modern legal dictionaries even though, obviously, it was a well-known legal concept in the early part of the American Republic. The War between the States nearly killed the concept.Interposition takes place when the lesser (state) authority places itself between the greater (federal) authority (exercising its authority unlawfully) and the citizen subject to both authorities.  Thus, the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government for each state.

It must be understood that the Constitution is a negative law document. In contrast, the old Soviet Constitution was a positive law document; the Soviet government assumed all authority and the peoples rights were specifically outlined within the document. The US Constitution, on the other hand, assumes that all authority rests in the people (there is an important distinction that the Christian must make here, discussion of which we are going to forego right now. Suffice it to say that the Christian knows that ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus Christ. Individuals have authority to establish government insofar as Christ delegates it to them) and that the government’s power is strictly restricted to those specific powers that the people willingly delegate to it. All other authority is forbidden to government and reserved to the individual. Hence, the enormity and complexity of positive law documents and the simplicity and, often, eloquence of negative law documents. It’s much simpler and easier to say “you have all rights except these” versus “here is a specific list of your rights.”

The purpose of government in the limited authority model is the protection of the rights of the individual both from other individuals and from government abuse. In this light, the lesser authority has not just the right to interpose in opposition but the duty to do so since the whole of his authority was given to protect the rights of the citizen.  So what does this have to do with unfunded mandates? Because of the loss of the original balance precipitated by the growth of federal power at the expense of state authority and individual liberty in violation of the 10th Amendment, the federal authority has assumed the power to dictate to the states that they must administer certain programs at their own expense.

In essence the federal authority is shirking its responsibilities to pay for the state administered federal programs that they have forced on the states, usually over the objection of the citizens, mostly because of political considerations. It’s a lot easier to let state authorities take the heat over unpopular tax increases that must come with unfunded mandates than to increase federal taxes to cover their cost.

The former insures that political wrangling at the state level over how to make it look like the other political party was “really at fault” for mandatory tax increases from federal mandates will both disgust and eventually numb the citizens to the real problem which is with their federal representation. The latter option would quickly result in a change in federal representation and a quick end to the programs that are increasingly consuming the citizens’ assets against their wills. In this light it is easy to see why the unfunded mandate is the method of choice for the federal politician.

“But aren’t you talking about nullification with resolutions like these?” you might be asking. Quite simply the answer is no. Interposition is not nullification. Nullification is a complex political activity. It requires the calling of a special state convention independent of the state legislature, the selection of delegates to represent the people of the state and debate of the issue followed by a vote of those delegates based on whatever criteria that convention develops on whether or not to declare the federal legislation null and void within the confines of that particular state.  Interposition is an act of a state legislative body saying simply “you can’t do that here because you don’t have the constitutional authority.”

Some might be saying “you just want to use this as an excuse to start a secession movement, don’t you?” The answer is obviously no. Interposition and nullification are both remedies: one legislative, the other political, for grievances against federal usurpation of state authority and individual liberty. They are specifically designed to eliminate the possibility of  secession, not make it more likely. No one who thinks is thinking of secession.

What sovereignty resolutions like HCR 11 are about is the re-balancing of the state-federal government equation. It is a re-distribution of authority, already constitutionally restricted to the states and local bodies, back to its intended delegates.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

How Not To Think About The Electoral College

This entry is part 4 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

Voting MachineAn article in The Oregonian for March 12, 2009 has one of the most surreal headlines this author can recall.

“Oregon House votes to end the Electoral College” screams the headline. All efforts to find other gems like Oregon Senate Passes Bill Rescinding The Law of Gravity; Awaits Governor’s Signature With Austronaut Pen Designed For Weightlessness or Perpetual Motion Machines Now Possible As Oregon Legislature Repeals Laws of Thermodynamics came to nought. Apparently there is still at least some sense of the impossible in Oregon journalism.

Not to be too snarky, but the Oregon legislature has no more authority to end the Electoral College (EC) than it does to create the laws mentioned repealing basic laws of physics. Journalists (not to mention editors, a problem noted earlier in this series of articles) should have at least a general working knowledge of the basic design and operation of the Electoral College before being turned loose to distort the facts of stories and misinform the public on the subject.

What are the problems with the article exactly? Here’s a list-

  1. The Oregon House voted today to end the electoral college system in favor of the popular vote in electing a U.S. president-

    WRONG! The Oregon House voted to surrender it’s sovereign authority to choose electors pledged to a specific presidential candidate. Oregon already awards its EC votes on the basis of the popular vote- within Oregon. The proposed legislation would ignore the will of Oregon voters  and awards its states precious EC votes on the basis of the national popular vote winner.

  2. Four states have endorsed legislation to ban the current system, which awards all the electoral college votes in a state to one candidate-

    Where, oh where to start with this mish-mash of disinformation? First, states have no constitutional authority to “ban the current system.” What they can do is pass a law thumbing their collective noses at their own state’s popular vote to impose a tyrannical system that would hand over EC authority to choose a specific candidate to the the 10-15 largest cities in the United States. They can perform this supremely irresponsible act because states are guaranteed nearly unlimited constitutional authority to choose presidential electors in any way that suits the state. But, legally speaking, they must still appoint presidential electors. Thus, the claim that the legislature passed a bill to  “ban the system” is an egregious display of journalistic buffoonery.

    Second, not all states award their precious EC votes on the basis of the popular vote, at least not entirely. Maine and Nebraska award their share of EC votes representing their members of the Federal House of Representatives on the basis of the popular vote within that specific congressional district. The EC votes representing the 2 federal Senators are awarded on the basis of the popular vote statewide. This most fair and representative of  systems insures that the cities cannot overwhelm the vote of the countryside and a truly proportional result is achieved.

  3. “For Oregon to join this interstate compact would move the nation one step closer to making sure every vote counts in presidential elections,” said Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, who carried the bill-

    Except for the voters of Oregon whose explicit wishes may very well be completely ignored in favor of the combined votes cast in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Atanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, etc. Rep. Cannon’s quote is possibly one of the most cynical and asinine utterances we’ve seen since…well…since the last presidential election cycle.

  4. The National Popular Vote would take effect when and if enough states equaling 270 electoral votes — a majority –approve the legislation to join the multi-state compact-

    How about some details here? What does this “multi-state compact” say exactly? What are the details of the agreement? Can states withdraw? If so- how? If not- why? What happens if, for instance, Oregon voters give presidential candidate “A” 60% of the popular vote but the rest of the country give presidential candidate “B” 50.01% of the popular vote in a squeaker with obvious fraud and Oregon then awards all of their electoral votes to candidate B on the basis of the compact? What if Oregon voters strenuously or even violently object to their electoral will being thwarted? Worse yet, what if the 50.01% of the vote was completely dependent on the votes cast in a single large state, the popular votes of the remaining states in the compact going to presidential candidate “A?” Has anyone asked these questions? How about it journalists?

Frankly, this effort appears to be one of the most poorly thought out attempts to circumvent the Constitution that has come along in some time. No one seems to be think through the possible scenarios and no one seems to be taking the time to examine the original intent of the EC, beyond talking in platitudes about its being “outmoded” (and stumbling badly or suddenly remembering an appointment when asked to be specific) and the like.

Last summer this author had the privilege of teaching a class on the EC at Camp American. They  will be posting some of the more relevant sections as class samples in the next few days and we will post some of them here to illustrate that while the EC is not perfect it is most certainly superior to the grossly  ill-considered and irrational reaction to the 2000 election outcome that is the National Popular Vote movement.