American Independent nominee for President; 2004 Republican challenger for IL Senate
Strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers
We seek to restore the intended balance between the three separate branches of our government, and to strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers granted and expressed by the will of the people of the United States in our Constitution.
All existing functions of the Executive branch that are outside of those Enumerated Powers must be eliminated.
All spending and regulation by the Legislative branch that lies outside the Enumerated Powers must cease.
who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again.
We demand a return to adherence to the provisions of the
Tenth Amendment: “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.”
Focus on moral sovereignty, tax reform, & sealing the border
I would concentrate on is restoring the sovereignty of the people of this country. I would restore their moral sovereignty, declaring that no action taken by the executive branch would support, aid or abet anyone who is destroying the constitutional
rights of those who are in the womb. I would sign an executive order to that effect day one, and we would reestablish this government’s commitment to the constitutional rights of our posterity. I would also want to abolish the income tax, and implement
the FairTax proposal that will end the wasteful spending by putting them under the discipline of a people who can actually withhold their taxes by changing their patterns of spending. I would establish a national border guard. I would seal the
borders of the US so that only those would cross our borders who are subject to our laws and the terms of those laws. I would encourage a real respect for the security that must be maintained along that border if we’re serious about the war on terror.
Campaign finance reform violates freedom of association
Any acceptable proposal for reforming the way that American political campaigns are financed must be based on the premise of the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association. That includes the right to associate our money with the causes we
believe in, and to do so in any amount that we think is necessary. For government to dictate what we can do under the rubric of “campaign finance reform” is a total violation of our constitutional rights, and we should force our politicians to abandon it
Avoid incumbency protection: no union or corporate donors
Campaign finance reform typically turns out to be incumbency protection. Professional politicians are unlikely to devise a system that isn’t in their own interest. We need to devise instead a system for financing our political contests in the interest
of our freedom. The premises that should govern such a system are simple.
The first principle is that there will be no “dollar” vote without a ballot vote. Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able
to make a contribution to his campaign. This means no corporate contributions, and no union contributions, except from unions truly acting on the authority of members freely associating and intending to make a contribution.
The second principle is that when anyone casts a “dollar” vote, it should be publicized immediately. The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result.
Terri Schiavo case was about judicial power over executive
In the Terri Schiavo case, we witnessed a spectacle of the governor of the state of Florida standing before all of us telling us he hadn’t the power to do anything about what he himself admitted to be the unconstitutional order of a probate judge--who
was backed up by a county sheriff--to deliberately take the life of Terri Schiavo.
So, what does that mean? It means that the moment Jeb Bush declared himself to be thus incompetent--and I use the word advisedly--in the face of the judicial order,
the executive power in Florida was transferred from him to the probate judge, who became the supreme executive authority in the state of Florida.
But in Florida, the supreme executive power shall be vested in the
governor, the state constitution says. If subordinate executive authorities can by court order forcibly resist executive power, then every judicial judgment is potentially insurrectionary, in the literal sense.
No representation for DC; it has a unique unifying status
Q: Do you support giving the District of Columbia voting representation?
A: I think the most important thing to remember about Washington DC is that it was established to be a unique representation of the whole people of the US. That’s a city that’s
supposed to belong to the nation, not to any one group and not to any one region. I think it’s terribly important to maintain that symbol of the unity of our country. We’re a free people. If folks don’t want to live in the conditions that prevail in
Washington because of its unique status, they can go to Maryland or Virginia. A whole bunch of folks have done so. Some of the biggest churches and everything else now exist in Prince George’s County, because people left the District.
They have that right, and I think that they can exercise it. But I think that the country is entitled to have this possession that symbolizes our whole united people, standing together as one community. I think it’s terribly important that we sustain it.
Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God
Q: Would you support the Constitution Restoration Act that prevents federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought to stop public officials from acknowledging God in such ways as the Pledge of Allegiance, public display of the Ten Commandments, & public
HUNTER: At the first Constitutional Convention in 1787, they began each session with a prayer with the supplication to God.
Ok if church identifies candidates who favor its principles
Q: My church is currently under IRS investigation for “political involvement” due to my identifying politicians who support the destruction of innocent unborn children. Would you remove the gag rule from pastors like me & repeal the restrictions against
churches from expressing our biblical convictions for or against a candidate?
COX: Yes. Let’s get rid of the entire IRS while we’re at it.
Reinstate that state legislatures elect US Senators
Q: [to Keyes]: You’ve publicly endorsed the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which gives individual voters rather than the state legislature the right to choose their US Senators. I’m just wondering how you reconcile your claim to empower voters when you
would disenfranchise them in your own Senate race.
KEYES: Senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures for the simple reason that the US Senate was supposed to represent the state government as sovereign entities. Our laws in
Illinois are passed by the state legislature. Are the people disenfranchised in the passing of these laws? I don’t think so.
OBAMA: I think [Illinois citizens] should be voting, not state legislatures. I teach constitutional law at the University of
Chicago and I understand that’s how the constitution was framed. It also prohibited anyone but white, male property owners from voting. That’s why we had amendments. It’s a funny way to empower people to take their vote away.
We have surrendered our personal sovereignty to government
Through the imposition of the income tax, we have surrendered our economic sovereignty--the control of our money. Through the acceptance of a government-controlled school system, we have surrendered our educational sovereignty--the control of our future.
And through the acceptance of a moral relativism that rejects the most basic premise of our way of life (belief in divine truth), we have surrendered our personal and individual sovereignty, which is the foundation of our discipline, and our freedom.
Source: Organizational website, RenewAmerica.us, “On The Issues”
, Aug 3, 2004
Surrendering moral government to courts surrenders freedom
There may be terrible consequences for being good. There may be suffering, death, & deprivation. But we still have the choice. We can spit it all in the eye, or we can stand strong for what we know to be right. In that death we would vindicate the libert
that God has put in our hearts: the liberty to choose His way. That means when we surrender moral government to the courts, we have surrendered the very essence of freedom and its only real meaning, and we will not be free again until we get it back.
Source: Rally for the Ten Commandments, Hillsdale, Michigan
, Feb 7, 2004
Congress should have the last word, not the Supreme Court
When they put the whole thing together for the federal court system, they gave jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the US, and then they gave it appellate jurisdiction over all other cases arising under the Constitution, “with such exceptions and under
such regulations as the Congress shall make.” When they tell you that the Supreme Court has the last word, they lie! The last word belongs to the representatives of the people, and it’s time for them to speak in defense of our right to honor God Almighty
Source: Rally in Blairsville, Georgia
, Oct 21, 2003
Obeying the dictate of federal judges means no Constitution
If we must lock-step, knee-jerk obey the dictate of judges on the federal bench when their orders have no basis in law or the Constitution, then we have no laws and we have no Constitution! We have only tyranny and oppression! We reached this point on an
issue that is not the least important issue that a free people can face. Indeed, if we look at the example of the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we would be justified in asserting that it may be the most important right of all.
Source: Rally in Blairsville, Georgia
, Oct 21, 2003
Call halt to “War on this” and “War on that”
There were wars we had to fight to defend this country. Somebody in Washington discovered that this war thing was a good deal. We had the War on Poverty, and the War on Crime, and the War on Drugs, and war on this and war on that.
At the end of these wars-what we find is the poverty is worse, the crime is worse, and drugs are worse. This “war on this” and “war on that,” has been an excuse to make war on the pocketbook and decision-making authority of grassroots Americans.
Source: United We Stand America Conference, p.346
, Aug 12, 1995
Only valid reason to go to Washington is to break up power
It is time we abolish aggrandized government power and bureaucratic control, and sweep this nation clean. There is not a single major problem that can be solved from Washington, D.C. There is only one reason to go to Washington. You go to Washington
to break up the power game. You go to bring those resources back to families, back to businesses, back to the grass-roots, community-based institutions where they belong-so we can get on with the business of making this country what it is supposed to be.
Source: United We Stand America Conference, p.346-47
, Aug 12, 1995
Campaign reform is hypocritical: leave office instead
McCAIN [to Bush]: If you’re going to allow [donors who] give a million dollars to stay in the governor’s mansion, we’ve got a continuing big problem.
BUSH: The people staying with me, these are my friends, John. These are my relatives, [yet you]
somehow question my integrity. You talk a lot about the “iron triangle” and you’re ringing it like a dinner bell with all those fund-raisers.
McCAIN: George, if I’m ringing it like the dinner bell, you’ve got both feet in the trough because you’ve
raised five times the amount of money in Washington [that I have].
KEYES: This whole campaign finance reform thing is just another example of the hypocrisy of these politicians. They’ve shoveled the money in their mouth, then profess to be shocked
at the discovery that it’s there. Then they say we should give up our right to give money to support the causes we believe in because they don’t have the integrity to do their job. We shouldn’t give up our rights. They should give up their offices.
Campaigns: No union $, no corporate $, no foreign $
Q: Do you have a campaign finance reform plan? A: I think that it’s very simple on campaign finance reform. Instead of saying that because these politicians can’t act with integrity, we must give up our rights, let the ones
who don’t have the integrity give up their offices. And let’s have a system that’s very simple. Only individuals capable of voting [can contribute]. No unions, no corporate money, no foreign money.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show
, Feb 15, 2000
“Dollar vote” only if you can “ballot vote”
Campaign finance law should be governed by two principles:
No “dollar vote” for anyone not legally able to cast a “ballot vote”
Immediate comprehensive disclosure of all campaign contributions.
Source: 2000 National Political Awareness Test
, Jan 13, 2000
Jocelyn Marcel Keyes, the wife of Alan Keyes, directs a Cathlic soup kitchen when she isn’t home with the couple’s three children.
According to Keyes’ chief-of-staff, Jocelyn is “extra supportive, but she is also very private.” Like her husband, she is also an anti-abortion advocate.
Source: Boston Globe on 2000 race, p. A20
, Dec 26, 1999
HATCH [to Keyes]: I have no question in my mind that we need to change the campaign finance system that we have. But I think that the McCain-Feingold bill is unconstitutional because it bars the parties and every public interest organization to use
the same money to participate. And it seems to me it’s just plain wrong. What do you think about it?
KEYES. All of these approaches are wrong because they’re based on a premise that I think is unconstitutional. If we have the right of free
association, then I think we have the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, in any amount that we think is necessary to get those causes to work.
KEYES: For government to step in and for these politicians
to be dictating what we can do under that rubric is a total violation of our Constitutional rights. And I think we ought to abandon it. It turns out to be incumbency protection anyway. They will never devise a system that isn’t in their own interest.
Unlimited contributions, but only by people, & publicized
Let’s devise [campaign finance reform] that’s in the interest of our freedom. More freedom, not less. Simple premises that we should have: No dollar vote without a ballot vote. If you can’t walk into the voting booth and cast a vote, you should not
be able to make a contribution. No corporate contributions. No union contributions. No contributions whatsoever from any entities that are not actual breathing voters who can go cast a vote.
Rich folks who want to give a lot of money
to candidates and causes they believe in, [should do so not from] behind PACs and camouflage, but under their own names, right out into the political arena. That will
itself regulate participation of money in our politics. But at the end of the day, publicity tied with our informed voting is the best way to regulate this system.