 |
| Greg Sowards |
U.S. Senate candidate Greg Sowards suggest there are 5 questions he will ask himself before voting on any piece of legislation: The answer to these questions will act as a safety net to filter out bad legislation.
1. Is this legislation worth putting our children and grandchildren into debt?
2. What effect does it have on America's traditional family?
3. Does it take rights away from law abiding citizens and give them to criminals?
4. Does it strengthen and uphold the U.S. Constitution?
5. Does it protect the Sovereignty of America?
According to Sowards, anything that doesn't get through this net, he will actively fight against! On Sowards campaign site he says, "I will not sit idly by and watch it happen, because I am afraid of offending a so called, friend in Washington!"
We will ask Sowards to measure Paul Ryan's budget plan, Path to Prosperity" against these principles when he appears on News New Mexico Thursday morning June 2nd.
Posts
3 comments:
There is only one question that needs to be asked. Am I allowed to consider this legislation under the Constitution FOR the United States of America? His 5 points tell me he does not understand what the United States are. (Sorry, it is NOT "is" when you are discussing a plural.)
99.99% of what has been done is unconstitutional.
I've spent more years than most people have lived studying the Constitution. I've read 150,000+ pages of text by hundreds of authors. What has been readily apparent is that the vast majority of people, especially those who seek office, have absolutley no idea 1) what the Constitution authorizes, 2) how our system of government was designed to function, 3) concering the fact that the US is NOT a single sovereign nation but is a UNION of 50 sovereign nations, and 4) many, many other truths.
Maybe Sowards should memorize this:
On the requirements of a Legislator to remain obedient to the Constitution.
185. ..."The case is different with the legislator and executive. He is bound to support the Constitution, - to uphold it as one of the pillars to an edifice. He is under the Constitution, not above it. He cannot support it by doing an act repugnant to it. 'His public office is a public trust.' If he doubts his power to do under the authority of the Constitution, he is bound to resolve the doubt against the act, not in favor of it."
"Mr. Cooley thus states it: 'Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution; they are chosen to do what it permits, and nothing more, and they take a solemn oath to obey and support it. When they disregard its provisions they usurp authority, abuse their trust and violate the promises they have
confirmed by an oath. To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume. ...
(continued)
A witness in court who would treat his oath thus lightly, and affirm things of which he was in doubt, would be held a criminal. Indeed, it is because the legislature has applied the judgement of its members to the question of its authority to pass the proposed law, and has only passed it after being satisfied of the
authority, that the judiciary waive their own doubts and give it their support.'"
"He holds the same views as to the duty of the President, and maintains that the President, even where the judiciary has sanctioned the constitutionality of an act, is not only duty
bound to give his approval to a similar act, but may, in consonance with his duty, withhold his approval. It follows from this, that a legislator cannot justify a vote for a law on the ground that as judge he would not declare it void. The legislator crosses no forbidden line when he refuses to enact what he believes is repugnant to the Constitution. The judiciary does cross a forbidden line where it declares a law void, unless it be without doubt repugnant to the Constitution. The legislator is never warranted in voting for a law he does not believe the Constitution sanctions, to support which he has sworn as an affirmative duty, not that he will not pull down the pillars of
the ediface, but, as one of the many pillars, he will uphold it."
"In the case of the law-maker, the question to be asked is: 'Have I the right under the Constitution to pass this act ?' The onus is for him to show his authority. In the case of a judge, the question is: 'Is the law clearly unconstitutional ? In annulling the law in support of the Constitution will I transcend my
judicial functions and usurp the legislative; or is the repugnancy so strong that I will only act judicially in annulling the effect of the law, and not transcend the boundary of my power
?' The burden shifts in the two cases. The legislator must show that he has the right; the judge must show the legislator was clearly wrong."
"Hence the law-maker may not justify a vote for a measure which as judge he could not declare void; but, if the judiciary declares such an act unconstitutional, it should forbid the law-
maker to pass similar legislation. On the other hand, though the judiciary cannot declare a law unconstitutional because not clearly repugnant, it does not justify the law-maker in voting
for it."
The Constitution of the United States: A Critical Discussion of
its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation, John Randolph
Tucker, LL.D., 1899. ISBN 0-8377-1206-8
Cooley on Constitutional Law, Pp. 153-54. 161-63., Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest upon the Legislative
Power of the States of the American Union, Judge Thomas Cooley, 1868.
Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., General Principles of Constitutional Law
in the United States of America, (3rd ed. 1898).
Greg Sowards is a strong Constitutionalist, however the five questions help to simplify his message. There are some programs provided for in the Constitution that we may choose not to legislate towards simply because #1 Is this legislation worth putting our children and grandchildren onto further debt? And of course question #4 Does it strengthen and uphold the U.S.Constitution? If it does not Mr. Sowards will be against it. I found your comments above to be very insightful but I also appreciate the brevity and clarity of Mr. Sowards' five questions.
Post a Comment