Not that you would know it from the Main Stream Media, but Rob Taylor is running for the United States Senate under the Constitutional Party of Wisconsin. Unlike the corporate media, I think everyone on the ballot should have their fair share of media and be allowed to get their ideas to the public. While this blog is not CBS, I asked Mr. Taylor a few questions and here are the unedited questions.
1. Running for any office is not easy, what made you run for Senate, and run under the Constitution Party?
I guess you could say I received the calling. One day I was pondering over the problems a middle class guy like myself goes through on a daily basis. Kids in school, keeping the mortgage current, keeping my job after hearing about friends losing theirs, watching neighborhood kids go off to a war that is unconstitutional, taxes and so on. I am not one to blame others for my troubles but I realized that I didn’t entirely create these problems, that some were bigger than everyday life. I knew in fact that the government was responsible for a large chunk of my woes. I would write my representatives and get back letters that contained nothing of what I wrote them about. When I tried calling I didn’t get replies. I knew we had a problem and as an Engineer it is my job to help solve problems. I looked around as to whom might be running so I could throw my support. I found nobody. So now, I was tired of complaining, knew a problem needed solving, and saw no one to solve it. It was then that I decided ok, fine, I’ll do it. That was it, my mind was made up. The question was now what do I run under. I knew that the two major parties didn’t have my total beliefs and I knew I wanted to get the country back to a constitutional form of government the way the founders had designed it. So I researched various parties and found the Constitution party. I liked about 95% of what they stood for and became a member. Once in, I announced my intention to run, was vetted and now I am their candidate for the US Senate seat.
2. All parties have tended to use the rallying cry “we need to follow the constitution again”, can you be more specific as to where we are no longer following the Constitution as you see it?
Yes I can, I see that our government by all branches and by both parties have distorted, perverted, and abused three clauses in the Constitution that was never meant to give the government so much power. These clauses are the: General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The distorting these clauses Congress as well as the other two branches have increase their power grab on the American people. We have distorted the Welfare Clause by starting and continuing such programs as Social Security, Unemployment, Medicate, and so on. We have perverted the Commerce Clause by Congress to justify its legislative power over every conceivable interstate transaction possible. Using the Commerce Clause has greatly shifted the balance of power from the individual states and We the People to the federal government. And Congress has abused the Supremacy Clause by creating laws outside the enumerated guidance of our Constitution. What this means is that any laws not following the process found in the Constitution are not supreme. And there are many on the books created not just by the current Congress and Administration but by those of the last 100 years. Other more specific areas that point to where the Constitution is no longer being followed are the federal gun control acts, the abuse of the 14th amendment, the unconstitutional 16th amendment and the eradication of a balance government caused by the 17th amendment.
3. In terms of illegal immigrants, do you feel the fault lies with the immigrants or the companies who hire them? Would you support punishment for companies who hire illegal immigrants?
No one is at fault when trying to better themselves or trying to leave a depressive situation. I would do the same thing. There are many factors that draw illegal’s here. One of them is companies who offer work. In the context of this question I am pushing for legislation that will punish companies who break our laws by hiring illegal immigrants.
4. On your website, you say “I affirm freedom of choice of practitioner and treatment for all citizens for their health care. “ how will you manage that in the for profit health care industry? You also want to ease the restrictions that we have on companies. How do we have freedom of choice of practitioners and treatment for all citizens for health care, when for –profit insurance companies have been known to drop people for such things as spousal abuse?
First of all, the federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. I do believe I should be able to have a choice as to what services I want and can afford. I want the right to seek redress of grievances through the courts against insurers and/or HMO’s. But if I can, I want that choice, I do not want the government telling me or enforcing me to do otherwise.
Now, as I said above “the federal government” has no Constitutional provision, it says nothing about the State. I believe that we were not sending so much money to Washington (A part of my plan as Senator), then we would be able to keep that money here in Wisconsin for our own problems, meaning some sort of health care. Maybe we can improve BadgerCare, I don’t know it is something to look at. I understand believe me I do about high insurance cost and pre-existing conditions. I have a family member with a pre-existing condition that we have to deal with some of these insurance companies. I have many friends in the same situation. I think the insurance companies have been taking advantage of us. Maybe some better regulations in that arena, as ease of restrictions is not necessarily no restrictions. Look, I am no fan of big business either; I know how they have abused the free-market. What I would love to see is some bright entrepreneurs develop a system to combat this crisis. I am old enough to remember there was no insurance. That the costs of medical treatments were within reach of people and we paid as we went along. But thanks to insurance companies, and government we are where we are now. You ever think how much insurance (owners, VP, that sort) people are our representatives. And you wonder why our laws and business practices are the way they are.
5. You say that your first act will be “introducing a bill for Congress to direct the President of the United States to take 40,000 America troops from overseas stations and put 30,000 of them with full battle armament on the borders with the remaining 10,000 troops assisting ICE in removing illegal’s from this country.” Then you follow that up by saying “I will ensure by any and all legal means that The Posse Comitatus Act is enforced. “ Don’t these two points contradict?
Congress has approved a number of instances where extraordinary circumstances warrant a departure from the general rule, particularly in cases where the armed forces provide civilian assistance without becoming directly involved in civilian law enforcement. So if we mandate that these military forces will be under civilian (Sheriff’s) control that should satisfy the requirements for Posse Comitatus. But only if these armed forces are under the control of the civilian authorities. There are proposed bills that could result in increased interaction between military and civil authorities. (H.R. 1986, H.R. 1815, S. 1042, S. 1043). However we must understand that this is an invasion happening on our borders and we must be able to repeal it or we won’t have to worry about American citizens rights being violated because there will not be any.
6. In the Pre-Amble the Founders specifically point out “promote the general Welfare” what do you think they meant?
Being that the Pre-Amble as defined by legal terms serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government and is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution’s fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Therefore in the spirit of the pre-amble let’s examine the clause before the General Welfare cause. In the preamble you have “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general welfare”. I use this as an example of what words mean and in a legal document words have well placed meanings. Two clear distinctions should be made here: Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach. For example, I’ll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
In order to understand the General Welfare clause, you have to look at only two things. The first is the common definition of both general and welfare. The second is to which body or entity this clause applies.
General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”
Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”
So, the Constitution states that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness and prosperity for the whole. In order to completely understand the meaning and intended purpose of this clause, you must define who or what makes up the “whole”. In other words, to whom does the General Welfare clause apply?
The General Welfare clause, as it became known, was a limitation of federal power written into the Preamble. The founders came up the clause after Benjamin Franklin and Gouverneur Morris of New York argued that it wasn’t right to tax the whole people in dealing with canals at the time. The Founders meant that unless the whole people of the United States would benefit from the tax, you should not promote it. Only the general, or the whole, welfare of the people should benefit from the tax.
This clause in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, does NOT mean “provide public assistance”, “Welfare” did not have such a meaning back in the days of our funders. What is now defined as “welfare programs” were at that time called “poor relief”. Until the 20th century such relief was largely the work of churches, private charities & local (and sometimes state) governments, NOT the federal government.
To sum up what I am talking about is that “Welfare” is referred to “well-being”, and promoting the GENERAL welfare was a broad term in use at the time to refer to the ‘public good’, or the well-being of ALL, as opposed to looking out for just the good of specific states, locales or classes of people.
Does this mean I want to end these programs today? Let’s be realistic. These were not started yesterday and they will not end tomorrow. What I would like to do is propose bills that would at a point stop the federal government from being the provider and turn it over to the states. There of course would be people who will be grandfathered in. But the main point is that the federal government under the Constitution is not allowed to function in this capacity.
7. What current and past elected officials have you looked up to and respected?
Although I am running against Feingold, I respect two things he has done. (1) Hold town-hall meeting for every county in WI. I plan on keeping that going. And (2) voted down the Patriotic Act. This bill was too large to be read in the amount of time it was posted and because it wasn’t fully read we have many of our civil rights at risk. My other elected officials elected are: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Johnson, and Zachery Taylor.
8. Of all the things that were not covered here, what message would you most like to get across to the voters of WI?
Yes I would like to tell the people of Wisconsin that your allegiance to The Republic and The Constitution must supersede party allegiance. That it is not your duty to vote Republican or Democrat, it is your duty to support and uphold the Constitution and the Republic. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Country and is the only law which protects our liberties and freedoms. When it is finally wiped away and all its authority usurped you will have no recourse, no protection from Government intrusion, and every part of life will be regulated and restricted. It’s clear that the current two party system will not change this environment and only a grassroots wholesale change against the establishment elites will accomplish this.
I would like to thank Mr. Taylor for answering my questions and running for office. Democracy is not a spectator sport and I appreciate anyone who makes the sacrifice to run for office. I also think that Mr. Taylor should be allowed to take place in the Senatorial Debates.