Tonight on Happy Hour on the Fox Business Channel I will be interviewed by Cody Willard. It will air from 5 PM to 6 PM. If you miss it live you can log onto the Fox Business website and see it there. I would like to thank Cody Willard for allowing me an opportunity to tell a nationwide audience about my campaign.
Archive for October, 2009
Tonight on the Fox Business Channel
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009Thank you to all who have donated!!!
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009I would like to thank everyone who has donated to my campaign. I would also invite everyone who has not donated to click on the contribute button and support me. I will need overwhelming support from the people to have a chance to compete with the Republicans and Democrats. There are people that tell me that a 3rd party candidate will only split the vote. I am not going to split the vote I AM GOING TO WIN.
Questions from Daniel
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009I wanted to share some questions that were sent to me from Daniel and the answers that I gave.
Dan,
Thank you for emailing me these questions. I have answered them to the best of my ability. I would welcome your response to them.
What is the purpose of government? Protect Life, Liberty and Property for all of its citizens
What kind of adherence should the Constitution be given, none, sometimes, or always? Always
What should be done with laws and programs that are not in accordance with the Constitution?
Each law that has been passed by the Federal Government should be revisited and have to stand up to the Enumerated Powers Act once that bill is passed
Are residents of our state free to engage in any business they choose? Any lawful business
Is operating any local business for profit a privilege, for which a citizen should apply for a permit, paying a fee or tax? Do you think that applying for a permit and paying a fee makes it a privilege instead of a right? I do not like that there are fees associated with starting a business in the state of Florida. I would propose a Fair Tax across the state and remove all other taxes and fees.
Can a tax rate be so high that it’s not acceptable? YES
If so, name a tax rate so high that citizens would be under no moral obligation to pay it? More than 50%
Should residents of this state have a right to carry handguns openly or concealed without applying for or receiving a “permit”? NO
Why or why not? To ensure that convicted felons cannot carry handguns
Whose powers are limited by the 10th Amendment? The Federal Government
Can you think of any ways to improve enforcement of the 10th Amendment? The Enumerated Powers Act, Repeal of the 17th amendment and the state sovereignty acts that each state legislature are looking to pass
Can you name a current tax that you would repeal? A fee? I would repeal all Federal Taxes and replace them with The Fair Tax
Should someone who has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, but who then votes to allocate tax funds to programs or departments not authorized by that Constitution, be punished? I do not know, I would welcome an idea from you here. I have not thought about punishing the politicians except for removing them from office.
According to the Constitution, which branch of government has the sole power to declare war? Legislative branch
Do you commit to a strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution in regards to any potential declaration of any war? YES
I would like to thank Daniel for the questions.
Alexander Snitker
17th Amendment
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009I stated my position in a earlier post about the 17th Amendment. Since that time many people have talked to me about why I should reconsider my position and move to repeal the 17th Amendment. The reason that made me change my mind on this subject was a email that I received from William.
Below is the E-Mail
Alex Snitker,
I enjoyed our conversation at the last Campaign for Liberty meeting at O’Boys BBQ in Winter Park last Thursday. I passed on the information to my friend that had questions about your views on the 2nd amendment and he seemed to be satisfied.
The part of our conversation about the 17th amendment is what I am writing about. I support repeal of the 17th as I believe it upsets the balance of power that the Constitution was providing. To help you understand my position I am providing some of the research that I have done and I hope that you will alter your position. Our Constitution was written by 56 of the most brilliant men ever to write a document such as they did. The US Constitution is an ageless document that really has no need to be changed, as it was written in 1787.
Here is the text of the U.S. Constitution. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Amendment XVII
(Ratified April 8, 1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
The following is from The Federalist Papers and is a treatise on free government in peace and security. It is the outstanding American contribution to the literature on constitutional democracy and federalism, a classic of Western political thought. It is, by far, the most authoritative text concerning the interpretation of the American Constitution and an insight into the framer’s intent in the constitution. To me they are a must read to understand the intent of our founders when they wrote our Constitution.
Summary and Analysis of Essay 62
Summary:
Madison begins this paper explaining that it will examine four points concerning the Senate; the qualification of the senators, the method by which they are selected; equal representation in the Senate; and the number of senators and the six-year term.
Two differences exist between the qualifications of senators and representatives: senators must be older and must be citizens of the United States longer. Senators serve longer and need a broader knowledge of government affairs, particularly in the area of foreign relations; consequently, the framers thought they should be older. Appointment by the state legislatures, rather than election by the people, is desirable for two reasons: first, this type of appointment assures that the Senate will consist of a select group of men, and the appointment by the states will provide a link between the states and the national government.
The Constitution provides for two senators from each state. This equality of representation is clearly a compromise between the different interests of the large and small states. In a federal system (where power is share between the states and the national government), it would be unfair not to recognize two opposing principles proportional versus equal representation. The principle of proportional representation is recognized in the House; the principle of equal representation is recognized in the Senate. Equal representation in the Senate protects the sovereignty of all the states, thus ensuring that the new government will not abolish the state governments. It also means that a bill, which must be passed by both houses before it becomes a law, will reflect the whishes of the people (represented by the House) and the states (represented by the Senate).
The method of appointing the senators solves another important problem. Frequently, men who hold public office forget their obligation to the people, and therefore, betray the public trust. By dividing the legislative branch into two parts and requiring agreement between them, the liberties of the people will be more secure, and the passage of bad laws will be more difficult. The history of governments all over the world demonstrates that where the legislative body is not divided their partisan leaders often sway the legislators. The senate, which consists of fewer men who will hold their office for six years, reduce this threat. Representatives, elected by the people, serve for only two years; in many cases their private occupations may be more important to them than their public office, and they cannot be expect to devote sufficient time to government or to a study of the laws. Most blunders of our governments to date have been caused by incompetence and a lack of political wisdom.
The Senate will not only provide stability in government, it will reduce the tendency of the House to pass too many laws. Unnecessary legislation produces chaos and favors the wealthy. The people cannot be expected to keep up with too many new laws and regulations; farmers and merchants will be reluctant to start new business ventures if they feel that new regulations will hurt their investments.
The object of good government is the happiness of the people, but good intentions are not enough. Our state and national governments have paid too little attention of statecraft and the art of government. Fortunately, the structure of the government under the Constitution will help to correct this defect. A society cannot progress unless the government is stable and respectable.
Analysis:
There can be little doubt that the designers of the Constitution saw good public policy and stability in the laws as paramount concerns. In Federalist 62, for example, Madison defended the Senate in the proposed bicameral Congress on the grounds, in part, that the Senate could block passage of undesirable polices which a unicameral legislature might approve: “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the States.” Similarly, “a Senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly distinct from and dividing the power with a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.”
One reason that House members could not always be trusted stemmed from their short terms of office. To Madison, this meant that these legislators would be unable to develop the necessary wisdom about public policy. As he remarked about the virtues of a Senate whose members have longer terms, “Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature continued in appointment for a short time and led by no permanent motive to devote the internals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust.” It was thought that a Senate with a slow turnover and whose members had long terms of office would be able to avoid the unwise polices that a unicameral legislature might be expected to produce.
A bicameral legislature could also be expected to help prevent instability in the laws. There was no doubt in Madison’s mind that instability in the laws had great costs: “To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume.” These effects were both external and internal. Externally, instability causes the nation to forfeit “the respect and confidence of other nations.” Internally, the consequences of instability were even worse “it poisons the blessings of liberty itself.” Commerce could also expect to suffer from an unstable government.
In 1785, the Marquis de Condorcet published his Essai, in which he explicitly noted and discussed the particular problem of majority rule instability. While The Federalists do not specifically discuss the problems of majority rule instability, one scholar notes that Madison had read Condorcet’s essay and is known to have written a review of it, a review which is now, unfortunately, lost. Although not explicitly, therefore, Madison and the Federalist papers do internally deal with instability, especially within Federalist 62 and the instability of the legislature branch.
Summary and Analysis of Essay 63
Summary:
Madison continues this essay where he left off, claming that the fifth desire of the utility of a Senate is the “want of a due sense of national character.” To any foreign country, it is necessary to have a strong, perceptive senate to ensure respect and confidence. Other nation’s opinions are important for two reasons: first, that a plan will appeal to other countries as a wise policy and second, the opinion of the world, in difficult situations, can be followed. Yet, however important national character is, the Senate cannot be a numerous and changeable body. It must be small enough so that public opinion can guide each of the members, as well as pride in their actions, because of the great amount of public trust in the body.
A sixth defect is the want of responsibility in the government to the people, because of the frequency of elections and other cases. The Senate, however, solves this defect because it is in power long enough to be responsible for the decisions that it makes.
The Senate is not a well-conceived idea, however, merely because it represents the people. It is also a good idea because at times the people need to be protected from their own ideas and prejudices. Although people are spread over an extensive region, they can still be “subject to the infection of violent passions”
In addition, “history informs us of no long lived republic which had not a senate.” They, however, had senates elected for life. America, however, will not follow these examples because they are repugnant to the foundations upon which the country is built. The plan of the senate, however, blends the stability with the ideal of liberty. A senate, however, is still extremely important and necessary because they then represent the people but are immune from the people’s whims. The people must be represented and in a senate that sits for life, this does not occur.
Some people, however, argue that six years is to long and leads to tyrannical situations. Madison answers, however, that in order for the Senate to corrupt, it must corrupt itself, the state legislatures, the House of Representatives, and the people at large. It, therefore, is not possible in only six years. If the people do not believe Madison, they should look at the examples of the State Constitution, particularly Maryland, which has a strong senate that has not corrupted the rest of the state. The best example, however, is Britain’s House of Lords, a hereditary assembly, which has not infected the rest of the country. With the balance of the House of Representative to guard and represent the people, the Senate is a necessary and important function of government that will support the “people themselves.”
Analysis:
In order to effectively understand James Madison’s argument in this federalist paper, it is necessary to understand the constitution’s opponent’s critique of the senate. Anti-Federalists argued that the Senate was too powerful and aristocratic. Federal farmer argued that, “The formation of the senate, and the smallness of the house, being, therefore, the result of our situation, and the actual state of things, the evils which may attend the exercise of many powers in this national government may be considered as without remedy.” Likewise, Centinel lamented that the Senate is “the great efficient body in this plan of government” and that it “is constitution on the most unequal principles.” Cincinatus summed up the critique quite well: “We have seen powers, in every branch of government, in violation of all principle and all safety condensed in this aristocratic senate; we have seen the representative or democratic branch, weakened exactly in proportion to the strengthening of the aristocratic.”
This Federalist paper defends the Senate as providing the wisdom and the stability “aristocracy virtues” needed to check the fickle lack of wisdom that Madison predicated would characterize the people’s branch of the new government, the lower house. Nor were there other critics lacking who, recognizing that the Constitution ultimately rested on popular consent, who, seeing that despite the ingenious apparatus designed to temper the popular will by introducing into the compound modified monarchial/aristocratic ingredients, could argue that the new Constitution was too democratic to operate effectively as a national government in a country as large and with a population as diverse and the Americans’. One such was William Grayson, who doubted the need of any national government but who felt, if one was to be established, it ought to provide a president and a Senate elected for life terms, these to be balanced by a House of Representative elected triennially.
It is significant, therefore, to notice that present day critics of the Constitution argue about the exact nature of the Constitution, just as they did in 1787 and 1788. It is easy to see and disagree on whether the constitution is monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic in its essence. John Adams probably best described the constitution, however, in 1806, writing to Benjamin Rush. Adams, disapproving of Jefferson’s style as president, bemoaned the fact that Jefferson and his followers had made the national government “to all intents and purposes, in virtue, spirit, and effect a democracy.” — Alas! “I once thought,” sad Adams “our Constitution was quasi or mixed government.”
An additional important note about this paper is Madison’s use of the word “responsibility.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles the word itself is an American invention, and its first appearance in the language is credited by the OED long discussion of senatorial “responsibility” in Federalist Number 63. The word appears four times in two paragraphs, as well as in Hamilton’s Number 70 and 77, as the differences between senatorial responsibility, presidential responsibility, and judicial responsibility are discussed in these issues.
Hope this helps you to understand my position and what I believe our founders intended.
William I do understand your position and have changed my position on the subject. I would like to thank you for the E-Mail. you took the time to send me this and I want you to know that i appreciate it.
Alexander Snitker
Momentum Radio Appearance
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009I would like to thank Ray for allowing me an opportunity to host his show. If you can missed it live log into www.momentumradio.com and click on the Video Archive to check it out.
