Monday, September 28, 2009

The Only Question a Politician Should Be Required to Answer

My friend John Russell sent me this, and I thought y'all would like it too.

The Only Question a Politician Should Be Required to Answer

By: John Russell | Source: IRN/USA News
September 28, 2009 8:18PM EST

It will start in the spring or summer of next year, the recurring civic ritual called the national elections. Would be office holders along with those who already part of the criminal enterprise called government will descend like locusts seeking out the gullible to build a base of support. An important part of this process is spontaneously answering the questions of perspective voters, especially those written in advance.

Now the questions asked will depend on the interests of the constituents of a given political division. If the electorate tends to be “progressive” then the questioning will go something like this. “Mr. or Ms. candidate I feel that as an ergo-challenged American it is grossly unfair that I should be required to scratch my own backside. What do you plan to do about this problem?” To which the candidate will likely reply, “I’m glad you asked that question. If elected I plan to introduce the Backside Abrasion Assistance and Social Justice Act.” thereby assuring another vote from a now informed voter.

For those, however, who do not see government as the solution for their problems it generally goes this way. “Mr. or Ms. Candidate what are you going to do to protect what’s left of my liberty and my wallet?” The standard reply is, ”My fellow patriot if you send me to (wherever the planned malfeasance is to occur) I will defend your rights as if they were my own.”

This answer, in reality is meaningless, because the question is the wrong one. If all you require from someone is that they defend something then your expectations are too low. The next time this electoral worthy comes to you seeking your support and you ask “what they have done in the interest of my freedom” they have no need to show any progress. “I did my best”, they will say, “but those rascals across the isle resisted my efforts at every turn. But I did lead the successful fight to stop the “Report With Your Children for Execution Act.” With another bullet dodged you’re expected to gratefully return this character to the scene of the crime with a new bag of burglar tools.

Let’s say that we do something different. Instead of asking the usual questions let’s try this one, just for a bit of sport. “Mr. or Ms. Candidate I only have one question for you which of the thousands of unconstitutional and insulting laws and regulations do you plan to repeal if I give you my vote?”

At this point I have to warn all would be questioners not to pose this question to an aged or infirm political hopeful as a voter induced coronary can only lead to bad press, and a new file with Homeland Security.

If every lover of liberty and the Constitution that allegedly guarantees it will ask this question, and not get sidetracked and demand a straightforward answer, it will become evident who will best serve the republic. Any who find the question to hard need not apply for the job.


Mattexian said...

I'd add, the politico in question should be wearing a shock collar, in case they try to weasel around the question!

Anonymous said...

L. Neil Smith has been championing "no new laws for 100 years" for some time now, to no apparent effect. One of you constitutionalist types ought to go around back of Leviathan and check out the view. The electoral politics types have been digging in their heels for two hundred years, and now Leviathan is taking them waterskiing. The odd part is that the electoral politicians are not chained in with a slave collar -- instead, they voluntarily hold on to the rope that is dragging them in a direction they don't want to go.

Orygunner said...

I've been toying with that idea now for quite a while... Since the job description of a legislature is generally to MAKE the laws, that seems to be all they do. Make law after law after law, and hardly ever do they repeal them.

I think a new Constitutional Amendment should be proposed for the Federal Government and every State.

"OK, you've written enough laws, time to start taking them down. Every state gets a maximum of 10000 laws, and the Federal Government gets 5000. Get it whittled down to that level. You have 4 years or you lose them ALL and you get to start from ZERO."

rexxhead said...

Constitutional amendment... like the idea... how about this:

The 28th Amendment -- Restoring Sanity to The Law

1. Congress may not exempt itself or its agents from compliance, in whole or in part, with any Federal law or regulation, nor allow regulations which do so, nor shall it be exempt from state or local laws or regulations regardless of wording to the contrary therein.

2. Any existing Federal law or regulation which exempts Congress from compliance with its provisions, in whole or in part, is hereby rescinded in its entirety.

Anonymous said...

rexxhead: How about changing "Congress" to "No Legislative body, at any level of government, may exempt itself ...

That should cover us all the way down to City Councils and the like. Hell, they're just as or more tyrannical than the Feds and States.