REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT

RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

[xzins]

At best, then, it's an issue for State Law as to whether or not Militias should be Compulsory, not a Federal prerogative (in fact, it seems to me this would be closer to Original Intent by far). The Federals can call out the "Militia", but the definition thereof is left to the States.

I agree strongly with the statement in bold.

[xzins]

see #79 & 81

[Jim Robinson]

"So Jim, You advocate these positions?"

Mostly, yes. But I'd rather repeal the 16th and abolish the Income Tax and the IRS altogether. And I do not agree with disclosure of campaign contributions. This is a privacy issue. I'd also like to repeal the 17th. And I'd like to go through all of the ABC agencies and abolish those that are not authorized by the Constitution, ie, most of them. I would also like to see the RLC take a pro-life stance. In the very least, to recognize that the Federal Government has no say in the matter whatsoever. Oh, yeah, and I'd also like to repeal most of the so-called federal crimes. I believe the Constitution leaves crime fighting to the states. Also, eliminate any chance of double jeopardy thru overlapping federal and state jurisdictions.

[rwfromkansas]

"neutral"!!!!!!

Well, I guess the Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't care about the liberty of the unborn.

[rwfromkansas]

He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so. They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

would also like to see the RLC take a pro-life stance. In the very least, to recognize that the Federal Government has no say in the matter whatsoever.

Yeah, I'd like to see the RLC take a "Pro-Life Stance" too... but ultimately, I'd just like to see the RLC say "Abortion is a State Issue, like 80% of all current Federal Programs".

Abortion is Murder. MURDER LAW is defined and administered by the States. Anyone who says otherwise is supporting the idea that Common Law should be the prerogative of the Feds... which contravenes the basic idea of State Sovereignty incorporated in our Constitution.

[rwfromkansas]

I do want to say overall the platform is good, though I take issue with a few things (ending the WOD etc). Despite the abortion issue, they sound like a good group.

I just wish they would take a stand and not be neutral on questions of morality. Conservatives traditionally are not neutral on issues of ethics and morality. Then again, this is not a conservative group, but a libertarian group. I have a lot to support when it comes to libertarians. My main sticking point with libertarians is just the morality issue.

[bluefish]

I seriously doubt if Bush or Reagan would ever post in the embarrassing, vulgar and flat-out immature manner in which you yourself have chosen to do. If I owned this forum (which of course I don't), I would revoke your "ReaganMan" screenname and allow you to post only as "LittleMan," which you seem to enjoy calling people who disagree with you in a logical or sensible manner.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so. They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.

No, the Federal Government can be "neutral" on the issue of Abortion. Just like they can be "neutral" on the issue of RAPE.

If the Federal Government is "neutral" on an issue, that does not constitute approval. It constitutes an admission of delegation.

Murder Law (which should certainly include Abortion) -- like Rape Law -- is delegated to the States.

If one believes in State Sovereignty, one delegates these issues to the States. All issues of common law are rightfully the prerogative of the Several States.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

My main sticking point with libertarians is just the morality issue.

State Issue.

The Federal Government was not constituted for the purpose of instituting Morality among the Sovereign States; it was constituted for the mutual defense of the Sovereign States.

It is not the Governor of the States; it is their Servant.

[tpaine]

To: Reagan Man
Put a sock in it. - This is not an abortion thread, or forum. - The RLC position is neutral.
48 by tpaine

--------------------------

He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so.

Yep, and we all heard him, & refuted him, the first time. Then he went on and on, spamming the thread.
There are plenty of abortion threads at FR. This is not one.

They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.

You ignore this threads issue.
- So put a sock in it.

[rwfromkansas]

Certainly you are right that respecting the authority of states is important here.

I am not talking about the federal government staying out. I am talking about not even taking a position as a group (the RLC), whether they are okay with or oppose abortion. My comment has nothing to do with the govt. and everything to do with the "neutrality" given by the RLC on this issue as to whether they will come together and say abortion is okay or not.

[rwfromkansas]

It concerns the positions of the RLC. How is that being ignored?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"Neutral"!! Well, I guess the Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't care about the liberty of the unborn. 84 posted on 7/25/02 8:44 PM Pacific by rwfromkansas

That's like saying that the Republican Liberty Caucus "doesn't care" about the sanctity of women's chastity.

Poppycock.

The RLC is not "uncaring" about the matter of Rape Laws; they just recognize that such Laws are defined and administered by the Sovereign States. Just like Murder Laws -- including Abortion-Murder.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am not talking about the federal government staying out. I am talking about not even taking a position as a group (the RLC), whether they are okay with or oppose abortion. My comment has nothing to do with the govt. and everything to do with the "neutrality" given by the RLC on this issue as to whether they will come together and say abortion is okay or not.

They are a Partisan Political Action Committee.
Just like the Republican National Committee.

And since the Republican National Committee delivers millions of dollars a year to Pro-Abortion candidates, how is ANY so-called "Republican" fit to criticize the Republican Liberty Caucus for simply refusing to behave as hypocritically as take a the Republican National Committee?

The RLC does not take a position. By contrast, the Republican National Committee claims a "pro-life" position (one not entirely commensurate with State's Rights, at that), and then betrays it.

Which is worse?

[rwfromkansas]

I admit there is a part of me that hates the thought of giving up a national moral standard on issues. If I can bring myself to do this and come fully to the state's rights position for EVERY common law area, I have to say I still would be bothered by the libertarians....not because of their position on state's rights, but on their refusal as a group to stand and declare that every life is sacred, drugs destroy lives, morality matters and a small group of reprobates can corrupt much larger groups of people. You see, the founding fathers did not shy away from declaring God is the ruler of nations and people in society need to have strong ethics and that includes strong laws to maintain this morality (at the state level, of course).

[rwfromkansas]

That is where the libertarians fall short. That is why if I joined a party, it would be the Constitution Party. They actually recognize the serious importance of an ethical and moral people in a Republic...without it, a Republic WILL fall eventually.

[rwfromkansas]

That is evil just the same. I don't condone that either.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That is where the libertarians fall short. That is why if I joined a party, it would be the Constitution Party. They actually recognize the serious importance of an ethical and moral people in a Republic...without it, a Republic WILL fall eventually.

I nearly voted Constitution in 2000.

I voted Libertarian, because I decided that it is silly to expect Morality to be preserved by Government. Government is the enemy of Morality at its best, because Government is Force and Forced Morality is not Morality, it is Hypocrisy.

Which is, itself, a Sin.

A Republic not founded upon an ethical and moral people, will indeed Die. But a Republic not founded upon an ethical and moral people deserves to Die. Trusting Government to forestall the dissolution only makes one party to an anti-Christian form of Messianic Statism.

Where God has failed us, Government will succeed?

God has not failed us, we have failed God. And Government will not succeed, nor bring us back to God, nor help one little bit. Government is an Idol, craves your obeisance, and will only make things worse.

The Government is your Enemy, and the Government desires your Worship. Think about it.

[rwfromkansas]

Wow.....VERY insightful post.

You make an excellent point. I have always WANTED a Christian nation in law, but only could support that if the people covenanted to that end. It would be wrong to force people to love God.

However, you take this issue of force much further and make govt. out to be the enemy completely on this matter. You make a powerful argument.