Skip to comments.REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Quoted from the Republican Liberty Caucus News thread posted earlier:
"In this election cycle, for example, California's Reagan-style Bill Simon was the come-from-behind landslide winner against the establishment-supported mainstream RINO favorite. This was no surprise to the RLC, which was the first national organization to endorse Simon's campaign -- about a year before the primary! And the RLC worked hard to ensure Simon's nomination, including telephone-bank efforts mounted in the Bay Area(3), which Simon amazingly carried, despite the region's well-known liberalism"
I believe these are in conflict with the congressional power in the Constitution to call out the militia and the presidential power to command that militia. The militia, by law, is the armed citizenry. (An important issue in the gun debate.)
It might require an amendment removing the congressional and the presidential powers regarding the militia. (relevant also in the section on the draft.) Removing these from the Constitution would probably be a bad idea since they are provisions for extreme national emergency.
Art 1 (legislative), Sec 1: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Art 2 (executive), Sec 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
- Financial contributions to candidates campaigns should be restricted to registered voters. -
This would be a Constitutional way to prohibit contributions from resident aliens, convicted felons, unions, corporations, etc. However, they would be free to make independent expenditures.
I would clarify that the WWII type arrangement where Monty was under Eisenhower but also had U.S. units under himself in the Allied Effort in Europe would be acceptable. (I believe both D-Day and the Bulge saw Monty with US forces under his control.)
There are various words used: attached, operational control, etc., that need clarification in this kind of setting.
A serious idea which merits careful concideration. I haven't seen it proposed precisely that way before.
The topic must be embarrassing to many people.
The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.
However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.
What is the RLC's position on abortion?
Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.
In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.
Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!
Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.