Legislators...Watch those Bills

Vigilance Needed from Legislators to Protect Liberty

During my decade as a Colorado legislator, it became evident that most legislators fail to use a limited-government filter when drafting legislation.  To further our freedoms, individual liberties must be considered first and foremost when evaluating legislation.  Much legislation is simply created as a response to current events of the day with little or no regard to long-range consequences.  The result, most often is a growth in the power and control of the bureaucracy over the individual. While legislation is generally proposed with good intentions, it is too-often crafted at the expense of the personal liberty of the citizens represented.

Observing this trend, caused me to develop a heightened sensitivity to the erosion of personal liberty, which in turn led me to adopt the philosophy of voting NO on bills that could not be proven to advance liberty or prevent its erosion in some way.  To create a degree of voting consistency based on limited government, I developed a set of filters which I used when analyzing each piece of legislation.  Some will say the list is too long; I submit, however that its very length indicates the many ways our personal liberties can be usurped. 

 Although this list was initially crafted as a guide for Colorado's state legislators, many of the questions would equally apply to  City Council members and County Commissioners as they too pass regulations, resolutions and the like that affect the individual liberties of the citizens they represent.

The following is a list of "filters" that if considered by politicians would hopefully reduce the frequent erosion of our personal liberties.

A “YES” to ANY of the following questions should  trigger a “NO” vote from conservative legislators.

        

• Does the bill limit personal liberty/freedom, personal responsibility or free enterprise?
• Does the bill exert greater government influence over our personal lives or that of the business community?
• Does the bill allow the government to meddle in free enterprise?
• Does the bill increase taxes, fees, or regulation costs on individuals or businesses?
• Could the bill eventually lead to an increase in taxes/fees or violate the spirit or intent of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights? 
• Does the bill erode an individual's property rights in any form?
• Does the bill redistribute wealth?
• Does the bill promote equality rather than equal opportunity?
• Does the bill concern itself with groups rather than individual citizens?
• Does the bill infringe on the rule-of-law?
• Does the bill in any way promote illegal immigration? 
• Does the bill fall outside the purview of the U.S. or state constitution?
• Does the bill negatively impact the traditional family?
• Does the bill lessen the authority of the parents over their children?
• Does the bill negatively impact the faith community or an individual’s right of conscience?
• Does the bill usurp the historical role of the religious community
• Does the bill run counter to traditional moral values?
• Does the bill negatively affect the sanctity of life?
• Does the bill further entangle the state with the Federal government? (or receive Federal funds)? see WSJ Article:
  http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-l-buckley-how-congress-bribes-states-to-give-up-power-1419541292
• Does bill increase the state’s budget over that of the previous year?
• Does the bill allow for funding through gifts, grants and donations?(i.e.by special-interest groups) 
• Does the bill increase a citizen’s dependency on government services?
• Does the bill allow increased government influence on K-12-aged children (i.e. Pre-Kindergarten, Full-day Kindergarten, or daycare?) 
• Does the bill require one or more government agencies to collect personal or business data?
• Does the bill reduce transparency of government operations?
• Does the bill diminish local control?
• Does the bill reduce a person's right to self-defense?
• Does the bill decrease the integrity of the voting system in any manner?
• Does the bill refer to "comprehensive" changes? 
• Does the bill transfer money from a specific-use cash-fund account for a non-related use?
• Does the bill’s passage seem to be advocated by organized “stakeholder” groups (stakeholder groups almost always require taxpayer dollars to further their future income under the guise of "helping" others.)

Legislators should "vote their Districts"...right or wrong?

 

What does it mean when legislators say, "I vote my district?"  Throughout a decade as a state Representative and Senator, I witnessed confusion among fellow legislators over what it meant to represent one's district.  There was a genuine lack of understanding as to what that really meant.

Republican Legislators, for the most part are elected by their constituency with the expectation that they will uphold the U.S., State Constitution and the Rule of Law, knowing that those two key principles create constancy and certainty within our society.  While agreement to these two principles is an frequent mantra by Republican candidates, the adherence to them, once elected, is too often overlooked or ignored when reviewing legislation when faced with self-serving demands of constituents.


Candidates will often promise that:  Once elected, I will represent this district." 

Disgruntled constituents often confront their legislators with, "You were elected to represent your district." 

Legislators, once in office, then face the dilemma of having to choose between their understanding of "voting their district," or voting consistent with the conservative principles they espoused during the campaign.  

These commonly heard cries by legislators and constituents turn into an excuse for some legislators to deviate from principles as they ponder their vote on controversial legislation.

 So, what then are a Republican legislator's responsibilities to his/her constituents when faced with an apparent conflict?

1. To Vote as consistently as possible, in line with the Party's conservative principles.  The goal of holding to consistent voting patterns based on principle provides confidence among constituents and reinforces the value of that principle in the eyes of other legislators.
2. To explain your votes to constituents, using reasoning based on the Party's conservative principles. Such explanations will reinforce the value of these principles to others.
3. To uphold the Rule of Law in all voting decisions.  Decisions consistent with the Rule of Law are fundamental to an orderly society.

The Perceived Dilemma: 
Republican lawmakers are often faced with the perception that some legislation will not be received well by their constituents.  More often than not, Republicans are faced with such dilemmas more often than their Democrat counterparts. Democrat lawmakers inherently craft solutions to issues that will seek immediate "relief" to constituents' needs.  Republican solutions generally address issues with longer-term solutions.  Consequences of "solutions" put forth by Democrats generally require greater government involvement and erosion of one's individual liberty, while Republican solutions generally require the individual to assume personal responsibility.

A couple examples come to mind:

First example:  Let's say legislation comes before the Agriculture Committee requiring all employers to ensure, through the Federal E-verify Program, that all newly-hired employees hired are legally present in the United States.  Although hiring of illegal aliens is unlawful, it is rarely monitored, and as such many ranchers and farmers are willing to assume the risk of federal penalties as they hire such labor.  Legislators representing such areas know their constituents rely on this illegal alien labor to make a profit.  What to do? For those legislators more political than principled, this can present a dilemma.

While campaigning, Republicans can be quite vocal in convincing their constituents that they will work hard to uphold the Rule of Law.  It is fundamental to our political system that all persons be treated justly and fairly within the law; that no man is above the law.  As a Republican legislator, pledged to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law must be viewed as paramount when assessing this legislation. 

Second example:  A bill comes before the legislature that requires each person wishing to vote to provide proof of citizenship.  A legislator representing a heavily Hispanic area becomes convinced that if he/she votes for the bill that he/she may not be reelected at the next election cycle.  What to do?

Election Integrity is paramount to the foundation of our Republic.  Therefore regardless of any resistance, intimidation or otherwise, the legislator should feel compelled to vote in favor of the Voter ID bill.  Following the vote, it will be necessary to explain this vote to some constituents.

"Representing one's District" does not necessitate pandering to a particular segment of constituents to gain short-term favor at the expense of those conservative principles advocated during a campaign cycle.  Instead, reinforce conservative principles at every opportunity;  they are the best for constituents over the long term.