header
Home  ::   Create Blog Entry  ::   Your Blog Entries  ::   View All Blogs

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Erock/Smashey Campaign Views on the Constitution

The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that the Constitution of the United States is a literal document, meant not to give power to the federal government, but to limit the power the federal government has. According to the 10th amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

It was a guarantee that any political decisions were made by localities rather than a distant central government that would be impossible for them to control as had happened under British rule.

Below are our beliefs on the biggest debates of Constitutionality.

War: In accordance with the Constitution Congress reserves the exclusive right to declare war. The President, as Commander in Chief, directs the war once it is declared. It is our belief that any war, not declared by Congress as outlined in the Constitution, is therefore unconstitutional. Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate a declaration of war to the executive branch. It is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid, yet exactly what we have allowed since Korea. The Erock/Smashey campaign holds strongly the view that all war must be declared by Congress.

Social Policies: We believe that social policies such as abortion should not be decided by federal courts, but should be regulated to the states as outlined in the Constitution since such decisions were not given to the federal government. Article 3, Section 2 gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of having jurisdiction over abortion and overturn Roe v Wade. At that point the issue would revert to the states where it constitutionally belongs. The Erock/Smashey campaign sees abortion as morally wrong and strongly advocates education and adoption as alternatives. We also however believe in following the law, whatever it may be. Americans have come to believe that it is normal for us to allow 9 judges in Washington DC to decide the social policies that affect every neighborhood and individual in the United States. One side hopes that the court will see it their way. The other side hopes they will see it their way. It is the belief of the Erock/Smashey campaign that every American neighborhood is not the same and that disputes over competing values should not be decided by a broad federal court. We believe that the constitutional approach is to allow the decisions that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding document to fall to the states. Let the neighbors decide for themselves.

Which brings us to our next belief: Removing politics from politics.

The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that if the citizens of the United States were faithfully bound to the Constitution , we would have no need or desire to be especially concerned when someone of a differing political philosophy is elected. Our Constitution relegates very few tasks to the federal government so it should be of almost no consequence as to who is elected. We would not have to worry if a policy that we disapprove of will be imposed on our neighborhood by a new President or Senator and their appointed federal judges. We would also no longer have to sit by and watch as those with the monetary power to donate large sums and hire numerous lobbyists decide what direction our government takes.

The Erock/Smashey campaign believes this: The more power we allow the federal government and explicitly the executive branch to have will also be available to whomever takes office next. We believe both sides should remember that small detail as that person or philosophy may not be one in line with your own. Are you willing to give the other side that power? Once we believe that the Constitution is a living document to be interpereted how the courts and federal leaders see fit, we must be willing to accept it and the decisions that are made when the other side is in control.

The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that respecting a literal Constitution is the best way to ensure that we have a power of the people, by the people and for the people. Not for the whim of the few at the top of a centralized government.

Share
Post Comment:

Comments

And yes our arguement is for freedom and that starts at the top. If you want your state to have legalized pot you cann't start at the state level u start at the Fed what freedom is it for the fed to dictate policy? Thats the same idea that has gotten us into a massive mess today. States and local governments are forced to do as the mandates by the Feds dicate. So yes me and Smashey are for freedom its you who is not. No matter how u try to cover it up.
If you get the Fed out of the way California would have legalized pot along time ago. U know and I know it. Also u do not want any transfer of power out of the fed because that would be a death blow to the socialist propoganda you spew.
What one size fits all model? Either consenting adults can do what they wish with their genitals or they can't. We either have laws that create crimes without victims or we don't. You're arguement isn't for freedom. It's for transfering instrusive power from the fed to the states..and I object! Either you're for liberty, or you'refor letting the government dictates. It doesn't matter if you're for letting the fed or the state government dictate. You are still for giving too much power over personal life to the government.
chronic you just don't get it. Your right no government should have a say on that issue but the Fed doesn't have the power to reach into the state on that issue. I would lobby my state to legalize pot but I don't want the Fed making a one size fits all model thats the main objection we have. I hope thats simple enough.
I hate this idea that "the rights not delegated to the federal government are reserevd to the states or the people" so conseravtives fork them over to state governments. There are some things NO government should have jurisdiction over. What plant I smoke, or what two (or more) consenting adults do with their genitals. Apparently in the minds of conservatives, When the fed makes a law, it's tyranny but if a state government makes the same law, it's great. Tyranny is tyranny even if it's at a state level. This is my main objection to the Erock campaign and all other states-rights campaigns.
yep
I guess I should better word that. Erock and I support equal rights for all human beings regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, eye color, penis size, brain capacity, beer preference, eyelash length, shoe size, etc, etc....
We totally support the equal rights amendment. We don't only believe in equality for women, but equality for all human beings. I personally think abortion is immoral and that there are other alternatives. I believe that the decision should be made on a local level because it is unconstitutional for a federal court to decide. The law is the law however and I respect it.
Explain unrestricted such as do we allow others to pay for it via tax dollars and do we allow partial birth?
Do yo9u support the ERA? Do you upport unrestricted acces for all women ove 18 to abortion?
This is simply an outline of our belief that the Constitution, when interpreted as a living document, allows the views of a few central figures to become the mandate on the whole. Depending on which philosophy holds office. When interpreted literally it is the view of the people on a smaller, local scope, where decisions can be made depending upon the views of the locality. Birmingham, Alabama doesn't hold the same views as San Fransisco, California but both views should be allowed to exist. That is the belief of the Erock/Smashey ticket.
This may not be lucky but its good.

recent