Thank You !!! Members Of The Armed Services !!! 

Election Reform
ACTION ALERTS ! ! ! ---Key Bills in Congress

Demopublicans vs. Republicrats The record shows that there is little difference in substance between the national Republican and Democratic parties.

Citizen Legislators

Elections at all levels should be in the control of those who wish to participate in or support them voluntarily. All laws that deny ballot access to political candidates and deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives must be repealed. Voters must be attowed to submit their own choices by writein.

Repeal Federal Election Campaign Act

Citizens for a Constitutional Republic urge repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act which suppress voluntary support of candidates and parties. Primary elections should be a taxpayer subsidized public event.

We need to return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away. The U.S. Constitution in  Article I, Section 3,  provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators. This provided the states direct representation in the legislative branch.

The U.S. Senate

The U.S. Senate was not established to democratically represent individuals (the U.S. House serves that purpose), but rather to equally represent the States. U.S. Senators were originally elected by the States' legislatures. Federal power was never intended to be wielded over individuals, but rather the federal powers enumerated in the Constitution mostly govern interstate relationships and relationships with foreign nations. This "grossly unequal" representation also ensured that no group of large cities in a couple of states could form a majority and dominate the rest of the country.

Repeal XVII AMENDMENT

It is vital that we repeal the XVII Amendment (1913) and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.

INCUMBENT REMOVAL ACT OF 2006!
~ We MUST make it a REALITY ~

~ Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) ~
Ranked by the editors of Human Events.

1. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)
Once approached by Democratic Leader Harry Reid to switch parties, Chafee has long supported liberal policies. He backs legal abortion, gay rights, federal-funded health care, strict environmental protections and a higher minimum wage. Opposes ANWR drilling. Also was the only Republican in Congress not to endorse the President's reelection and one of three who tried to gut Bush's tax cuts.

2. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
A self-described "centrist," Snowe scored a 100% pro-choice voting record as scored by NARAL and consistently votes with Democrats on social issues.

3. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.)
"Snarlin' Arlen" warned Bush not to nominate judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade, joined Chaffee reducing tax cuts and supported Democrats on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, HMO and overtime regulation. Also opposed school choice in Washington, D.C.

4. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Voted with liberals on the 1999 tax cut, campaign finance reform and the partial-birth abortion ban. Also advocated "pay-as-you-go" tax cuts with spending increases in 2004, leading to a budget never agreed upon between the House and Senate.

5. Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.)
He led the House fight for McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." He's also prone to back environmental causes, gun control and abortion rights. He had no GOP challenger in 2004, but narrowly escaped defeat, 52% to 48%, by a Democratic opponent in the general election.

6. Gov. George Pataki (N.Y.)
Helped unions raise pay and unionize Indian casinos. Has said, "I believe in a limited government, low taxes, a tough approach to crime. ... But I also believe in an activist government. I'm not one of those laissez-faire types."

7. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.)
Over the course of his 23-year career, he's gained considerable power (chairman of the Science Committee), despite amassing one of the most liberal voting records of any House Republican. Fought back conservative challengers in 2000 and 2002 and could face a GOP challenge in '06.

8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
Has said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city's aesthetics, saying, "This is what happens when you don't have zoning."

9. Rep. Michael Castle (Del.)
As president of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and key player in the so-called Tuesday Group lunches, he is a ring-leader of RINOs. He's teamed with Democrats to make federal funding of embryonic stem cell research one of his top priorities.

10. Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa)
One of only six House Republicans to vote against the Iraq War resolution in 2002, he was also the only Republican to vote against President Bush's 2003 tax cuts. His support for environmental causes and abortion rights has won him liberal fans.

 Are You Stupid Enough to be a Democrat? 
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

John W. Lillpop

States must force 17th Amendment showdown February 4, 2005 By Devvy Kidd

---

The Seventeenth Amendment: Should It Be Repealed? Why The Direct Election Of Senators May Have Been A Serious Mistake, And One That Helps Explain The Supreme Court's States' Rights Views By John W Dean The Rehnquist Choice Unmasking Deep Throat Warren G. Harding (The American Presidents Series) Worse Than Watergate

---

Why should we repeal the 17th Amendment? By Senator Jerry O'Neil

Term Limits

In a recent book about term limits, The Test of Time, Professors George Peery and Thomas Little, write:

One of the occupational hazards of scientists is the possibility of their work leading to unanticipated consequences. For state legislative scholars an ironic and surprising result of their research is term limits. In the last three decades they have...in significant ways shaped the very institutions they studied. Who could have predicted that one of the consequences of their success in pointing the way to greater professionalization and institutional accountability would be the "amateurization" and destabilization inherent in term limits?

We can elect Conservative legislators till we are blue in the face but as you can see by the conclusion of the article    The Case Strengthens, By Aaron Steelman it is quite clear the need for term limits.

What We Are Up Against

12/19/05

New York State Senator John Marchi of Staten Island is an old hand at politics. And he doesn't think much of any idea to oust him and his kind from office.

When asked, recently, about term limits, a reform that's gaining popularity in his state, Marchi left the answer to his press advisor, Jerry McLaughlin. McLaughlin said that his senator has opposed term limits "for some time."

You bet some time! He's America's longest-serving legislator, at any level of government. He's been in office 58 years, longer than I've been alive, longer than Fidel Castro's ruled Cuba without a term limit.

Of course, McLaughlin repeats the usual nonsense. Marchi, he says, "thinks the state benefits from the experience of people who have had to deal with the problems and are familiar with the issues and the details so they can work toward effective solutions." Trouble is, New York government is in horrible disarray. According to recent polls, a solid majority of New Yorkers think their government is on the WRONG track. If Marchi and his comrades are so experienced, why such low scores?

But McLaughlin, speaking for Marchi, remains adamant. "You want to try with a rookie quarterback or someone who knows something about the game? That's essentially it."

Nice metaphor. Problem, though. Who is he playing for? I'd rather have a rookie on MY side rather than a seasoned pro fighting AGAINST me.

Today, without term limits, the politicians play against us.

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

State Legislative Term Limits

National Conference of State Legislatures

 Phyllis Schlafly Articles 

 Devvy Kidd Articles 

 Doug Bandow Articles 

The logic behind term limits and a historical perspective

By John Silveira

None Of The Above

Are you tired of politics as usual? Sick of choosing the lesser of two evils? Want to throw the rascals out, send a message, vent the spleen? What can a frustrated voter do? Vote for "None of the Above." The exercise is a positive way to channel voter outrage but still reinforce citizen responsibility to vote, even when the choices leave voters cold.

Why should citizens only be able to vote "yes" for someone or abstain? In the act of voting, a citizen not only chooses someone to govern, but also gives consent to be governed. Sometimes a voter may want to withhold consent. If enough people refuse to give consent, that will so withdraw the sense of desperately-needed legitimacy from politicians that it might bludgeon them into cleaning up their act.

In addition to Term Limits we need None Of The Above (NOTA) legislation. (NOTA) laws would take the power away from the corrupt political parties and allow the average voter to be in control.

A None of the Above (NOTA) line on the ballot -- is a proper and long overdue expansion of voting choice at a time when citizens are staying away from the polls in droves because of their disgust, distrust, despair and disillusionment with tweedledum--tweedledee politics.

Presently, from forty to eighty percent of eligible voters, depending on the election, stay home and are labeled apathetic. Refusing to participate, they do not count and have little impact on who gets on to future ballots and how they behave when elected.

NOTA makes voters who wish to register a "no-confidence" vote, who wish to withhold their consent, count.

A binding NOTA would work this way: candidates would have to be concerned about both their opponents (if there are any at all, or if there are any who are competitive) and the NOTA line. For if NOTA obtains either a plurality or a majority of the votes cast, the election for that post would be cancelled or invalidated, along with the dismissal of the candidates, and a new election would be called.

New candidates would have to be nominated (the NOTA-defeated ones could not rerun in the new election) and voting day could be 30 to 45 days later. A NOTA procedure could be enacted by legislation or constitutional amendment at the state level. Because of federal constitutional requirement re the electoral college etc., a state-passed NOTA could not reach Presidential elections. But it could apply to any Congressional or state or local offices that is desired.

Citizens are increasingly showing their displeasure with the political process by not voting. Including NOTA on the ballot could give citizens a reason to go to the polls even if they aren't enthusiastic about the choices, and would be far more effective than campaign finance reform in reducing the overwhelming advantages of incumbents. NOTA might even discourage highly negative campaigning, since candidates would be running for the approval of voters, not just to offend fewer people than their opponents.

Reducing Advantages of Incumbency

NOTA would be far more effective than campaign-finance reform in reducing the overwhelming advantages of incumbency. Incumbents are bolstered by their high name recognition, by institutional perks like franking and by a whopping contrast in campaign finances. A study conducted by Common Cause found that only 5 percent of the races for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 were financially competitive.

This disparity translates into an extraordinarily high re-election rate for incumbents. In 1988, 98 percent of all incumbents were returned to Congress. An analysis concluded that a congressman was more likely to die during his term than be defeated in that year. In 1992, when candidates faced redistricting, a House bank scandal and financial incentives to retire early, those incumbents seeking office still won 93 percent of the time.

In many races, second-rate incumbents win by beating third-rate challengers. A big NOTA vote against an entrenched incumbent would increase the chances of recruiting serious challengers the next time around. And moneyed interests might not invest so heavily in incumbents if their longevity was no longer guaranteed.

Restoration of an electoral process

Citizens for a Constitutional Republic seeks the restoration of an electoral process which is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities.

Each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in federal and state constitutions. Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures burden unconstitutionally the fairness and accountability of our political system.

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other, more stringent criteria.

Repeal Presidential Funding Act of 2003 (McCain - Feingold)

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. S. 1913 McCain - Feingold    And its companion bill   H.R.3617 , Presidential Funding Act of 2003 ) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is time for the American people to renew effective supervision of their public servants, to restore right standards and to take back the government. Congress must once again be accountable to the people and obedient to the Constitution, repealing all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary.

What can we do?

Write Congress and ask them to sponsor legislation that will make the list above a reality. Ask them to sign pledge that they will only Sponsor, Cosponsor or vote for bills that are Constitutional.