Interview with Mr. Rob Taylor – Wisconsin Senate Candidate

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.
Common Definitions:
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.”
Source: (
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.


Related Articles

22 thoughts on “Interview with Mr. Rob Taylor – Wisconsin Senate Candidate

  1. What is it with you guys? Rob Taylor??? Just doing your little part to try and siphon away some vote from Johnson, are we now?

  2. No, not at all. Can you honestly tell me that you would consider voting for someone other than Russ Feingold? A liberal blog gives face-time to a FAR-RIGHT candidate? Hmmm Rob Taylor has no support except for a few fringy TEA Party types

    1. I wouldn’t consider voting for someone other than Russ Feingold, but that doesn’t mean other candidates don’t deserve to have their voices heard. Sure, I won’t vote for Rob Taylor, but I certainly found this interview to be interesting and informative, and ultimately shouldn’t we all want voters that are as informed as possible?

    2. No, I am a supporter of Senator Feingold. But Zach did post an interview with Dave Westlake before the primaries…and if ANY candidate contacted me and wanted to do a QA, I would certainly do it and publish it here. Yes I am a lefty and Yes I am most likely going to support the lefty/liberal/progressive candidates, but I definitely want to hear the other points of view from any and all candidates.

  3. If ron johnson or any other republican candidate will answer questions I will gladly print them here also. I will send some questions tonight to Rojo campaign and see what I get.

  4. Ok fine I don’t mind giving other candidates a voice and certainly the internet allows greater opportunity for that, but really with the “corporate media” stuff? I mean, the news is going to cover viable candidates much more than it will for a candidate who will receive less than 1% of the vote. Don’t tell me the media is beholden to Rep-Dem only, because look at Ross Perot and others. If candidates show momentum, they will get covered.

  5. Ok questions sent to both the Feingold and Johnson campaigns. I will let you know if I get an answer.

    And forgot I strongly disagree, ross perot is the exception not the rule. Look at how Dave Westlake was treated by the media.

    1. So you are saying the media is advocating for the front-runners? Westlake didn’t have much support, what do you want the media to do about it? They should devote a bunch of time to someone that has no momentum and force him upon us?

      It’s just reality. Who gets more attention, the #1 box office star or the guy whose movie bombed? The Super Bowl champion or the Detroit Lions?

      1. I hardly think actors and sports teams are as important as people running for political office. They still deserve enough press so that everyone knows who they are and where they stand. For instance, I didn’t realize anyone was even running against Christine Sinicki until I saw a couple of yard signs this week.

    2. Ross Perot may have been a 3rd party exception, but that’s because he garnered a groundswell of support and the media caught on and started covering.

      1. Ross Perot may have garnered attention because he was one of the richest men in America at the time with a reputation for recklessness and he bought a ton of air time.

  6. What I am saying is the corporate media tends to favor the status quo and those in charge for fear of reprisals. Access is the name of the game now and if they piss off the people in power they would lose access. To be fair both sides do it.

    I think the Dave Westlake case is a perfect example. He was running a true grassroots campaign and in comes rojo with his millions anointed by the republican party and he was automatically the front runner. Or how about the coverage of tea party events with a few hundred people at them? a single tea party this summer has gotten more coverage with the media than 9 years of fighting bob fest combined.

    1. Access? It’s a competitive media and politicians need the media as much, if not more so, than the media needs access to politicians. You can’t say Westlake had a grassroots campaign just because you wanted him to have one. How many supporters did he have exactly? Are you saying Westlake lost because he didn’t get more media attention? That is ridiculous.

      I’m sorry Bob Fest didn’t get more coverage, although somehow I do seem to hear about it every year. The difference is that the tea party is a national movement and phenomenon. Some initial rallies had more than just a few hundred people. But again, you are saying the media is ADVOCATING for the tea party and not Bob Fest? That just doesn’t make any sense. Your corporate conspiracy theories don’t add up.

  7. That’s not true Forgot, they need media but not all media. That is why sarah palin is urging her fellow “tea party” candidates to “speak through Fox News”. When was the last time ROJO was made accessible to anyone but the hateful three (mckenna/sykes/belling)?

    The media is advocating for the Tea Party, mostly because they are so well funded by the Koch brothers and have Fox news as a PR wing. Its not just BOB fest it was also numerous anti war protests with way more people during the bush years that got zero coverage.

    One perfect example is when Bush first got into office Helen thomas got called on right away. She asked a tough question and was never called on again in his 8 years.

    1. You might want to check your facts JUST ONCE. JUST ONCE! A google search that took 0.1 seconds shows at least two questions Ms. Thomas asked of Bush during the Iraq War (so, NOT when Bush first got into office).

      For what it’s worth, apparently he did “snub” her by not letting her ask a question at his last press conference in January 2009 (one can hardly blame him), but that hardly amounts to not calling on her in his 8 years. And where is Ms. Thomas today?

      If you think the media is ADVOCATING for the Tea Party, I have to ask what you were smoking at Bob Fest. Plus I remember seeing wall-to-wall coverage of anti-war protestors (when it started, Bush’s second inauguration, the entire second term). The truly funny part is that NOW you don’t see any anti-war protestors now that Obama has taken office. Gee, I wonder why. You can tell me whether the libs have stopped protesting or the media is deciding not to show them during the term of a liberal president.

      But this all amounts to, you complain a lot but what do suggest as a remedy? Are you going to force the media to cover things that you want? Going to force politicans to answer the questions of every media personality? Maybe the government should take over the press too and then all would be well and fair. If you want it for health care, why not the media too?

Comments are closed.