May 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
HT: Die Schreiben von Schreiber
Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist minister from Florida and radio talk show host, secured the Constitution Party’s entry for President of the United States. To his credit he put out a nice, direct statement of what he would do were he President.
As a matter of principle, I cringe when a pastor/minister/representative of the right-hand kingdom seeks office in the left. The statement however is refreshingly devoid of “Christian nation” or destiny language.
I like most of what he says: he is right on the money with illegal immigration, sanctity of life, the NAFTA superhighway, and nation building.
Baldwin is inconsistent on free trade. He wants free and fair trade with Russia, still arguably a threat on the world stage through its desire to build a nuclear reactor in Iran, but he wants to punish Communist China. Either they are both threats or they are not.
Other than his statement that gas should cost $1.50 — that should be a decision of the market, not a target price point — his ideas about energy policy are sound. We should not be dependent on OPEC. We need to stop leaving our resources fallow and let companies upgrade their refineries to reasonable efficiency and environmental friendliness.
He is for the repeal of the Income Tax Amendment as well as the estate, inheritance, and property taxes, with no alternatives to make up the difference. I like the idea, but it’s been Republican policy to reduce taxes without reducing spending. I would pursue lower taxes for economic stimulus, slash spending, and pay back our mountain of debt, resulting in a monstrously strong dollar that can buy anything we want it to. 
The only really bad thing I saw was this comment:
And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics.
What does this mean? Does this mean excluding police protection from abortion clinics? Bombing abortion clinics was wrong 20 years ago, and it’s wrong now. If he meant no federal funds for abortions, that’s a good thing.
All in all, not a bad job for someone sticking their neck out. I hope he gets into some debates, but his opponents would fry him on the abortion clinic issue.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
May 8th, 2008 at 6:36 am
That does need to be clarified. I think he means that he would not protect an abortion clinic if it was shut down by a state under state law.
The scenerio would go like this: A state passes a state law closing down abortion clinics. State autorities move in to close it down. Planned Parenthood goes to court. Federal courts order the state to stop closing down clinics. They don’t stop. What now? The Federal courts order President Baldwin in to protect clinics from State autorities. He, as chief executive of Federal Law, does not choose to execute that particular unconstitutional order. The constitution is the highest law of the land, so it is with a clear conscience that President Baldwin does not execute an enforcement of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.
It is how checks and balances are supposed to work. The president swears an oath to protect the constitution, not to protect judicial decrees. Each branch of government is responsible for its part in upholding the law.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’ve been (during my short voting career) a Republican voter, but Ron Paul and the Constitution Party occasionally tempt me.
I’ve also been a supporter of the war from the beginning and now I have also started to question whether a full-scale invasion rather than some missile strikes and other limited actions was the right choice. This is basically Ron Paul’s and Baldwin’s view. I cringe though when I read some of the statements that sound like they come from the Loony Left about the Iraq war. Baldwin says we’ve become an unwanted occupying force and if the US was similarly occupied many of us would become “insurgents.” This is a position of ignorance. Much of the violence has been caused by foreign terrorists, not Iraqi “Freedom Fighters.” And a recent BBC poll of Iraqis shows that many of the Iraqis (actually a majority) want the US presence to remain because of the security gains of the surge. Anecdotal evidence from some troops and journalists is in agreement.
This sort of ranting keeps me voting Republican.