MB: I teach an 8 hour class on the Constitution and one of the questions that I pose to my students is "what's the definition of 'constitutional'" and they tend to look at me really funny and say "well, if it's in the constitution then it's constitutional." They act like "duh, if you're teaching the class you ought to know that." Well, I point them to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 which allowed slavery until 1808. Is anybody here pleased or happy with that? And so the point is that there are things in the Constitution which are clearly wrong. It is possible to add amendments to the Constitution which are wrong. So the question is, how would you know if there are parts of the Constitution which are bad and needed to be ignored or taken out, how would you be able to differentiate that from the other parts which are good? The answer is basically in the Declaration of Independence. The purpose for forming a government is to protect our lives, our liberty and our private property. So that is the rule of thumb that I use. If it is doing that, protecting our lives and liberty then it's good thing. If it's violating our lives and liberty or if the government is taking your property using an excuse called 'eminent domain', I don't care how many idiots in black robes are telling me that yes we're going to be able to do that yes we're going to be able to do that - Kelo vs. New London - I will stand there with firearms and tell you "no, you cannot take my private property." This is antithetical to the purpose of our government. So understanding why the Constitution was written in the first place, having that philosophical underpinning, allows you to read the Constitution and understand explicitly what it was intended for. And again the primary purpose of the Constitution is to put limitations on the government. The Constitution doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to you. Article 1 creates the legislature. I'm not in Congress yet so it doesn't apply to me. Article 2 establishes the executive branch. Well, neither one of us is working out of the Whitehouse so it doesn't apply. And the third article establishes the Supreme Court and inferior courts. Neither of us goes to work in black pajamas, so it doesn't apply to us. The metaphor that I use is imagine parents putting a list of rules on the refrigerator: you've got to eat your vegetables, no television until after you finish your homework, you've got to be in bed by 9 o'clock. Does that mean that Mom and Dad have to be in bed by 9 o'clock? No. Those rules were made for the children. Mom and Dad are basically exempt. They can change the rules. We the people ordain and establish the Constitution. We created rules to limit government power. The Constitution applies to people in government. They take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. This does not mean that they go down to the National Archive and stand in front of a piece of parchment to make sure nobody gets a smudge on it. You're not protecting the physical Constitution, you're protecting the ideals and the principles embodied in the Constitution. And namely life, liberty and private property. So basically any changes to the Constitution or any subsequent statutes that are supposed to be based on the Constitution had better be protecting life, liberty and property and when they exceed the government power as listed in Article 1, Section 8, they are by definition unconstitutional and I will do everything I can to stop it.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - Roberta
Good for Michael Badnarik, I hope he wins. Finally, Libertarians are getting some press.
Bill Peirce, Libertarian for Ohio's Gubernatorial race
Good article, looking forward to part 2.
2 - Nancy
Terrific article, well done, Dave! I don't agree totally with his ideas, but I really hope he wins, because he's on target in that the current incumbents both GOP & Dem have forgotten THEY work for us, and this country desperately needs a 3rd - and even a 4th - alternative party for people to choose from. I'm surprised the GOP hasn't targeted him & started their usual smear campaign; perhaps they don't regard him as being enough of a threat? What do you hear about that?
I've always thought it was a vast mistake for alternate party candidates to run for president; without some kind of prior position such as congressman or governor, it's virtually impossible. Even Ross Perot with all his billions was unable to buck the system in the end, more's the pity.
Well, here's to Badnarik; good luck to him & all of us. Good job, Dave!
3 - Dave Nalle
Badnarik addresses the issue you raise at some point in the interview, as I recall. His argument is that you get a lot more exposure for your ideas as a presidential candidate and if you're not going to win anyway, you want to not win with the largest possible audience.
Dave
4 - Nancy
Yeah, but look at Lyndon LaRouche, the perennial Presidential candidate. He's been running for eons, but his platform gets nowhere. It's a joke. Now if he'd perhaps gone (back before he became a household byword for crackpot) for a local position & solidified from there, to a seat in the Virginia assembly, and from there to a seat in congress or perhaps governor, he'd have had a viable position from which to get out the message. As it is, he's just the crackpot who runs for president every 4 years. As I said, I think it would take someone with the bank account of a Bill Gates to try to break in on a national level, these days, and even that would be an uphill job, given the ruthless desperation of the two entrenched parties to prevent anyone else from joining the fray. After all, look at the savaging Bush/Rove inflicted on fellow Republicans; talk about eating your own young! I hardly think they'd be nicer to a wanna-be 3rd party or its candidate.
Anyway, I DO hope he wins. Good job, Dave.
5 - Lumpy
What larouche runs for is kind of irrelevant since he's so obviously a deranged maniac.
6 - Clavos
Very interesting interview, Dave.
I like
muchmost of Badnarik's ideas expressed here, but I'm not in agreement with his wanting to do away with GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and trade agreements in general.I'm afraid if we do, other nations will impose tarriffs and other restrictions unilaterally, and the net result will be a loss of market position on a worldwide basis for American businesses.
He makes a strong point when he talks about his potential for supporting and backing up Ron Paul.
I wonder how realistic he is when he dismisses your point about committee memberships?
7 - Jet in Columbus
Now if we can keep idiots from confusing the Libertarians from the Communists he'll be all set.
8 - George Whitfield
I really like the way Michael Badnarik explains his positions. I am so glad that I contributed to his campaign for Congress in Texas. I wish him the best.
9 - Al Barger
I like Michael Badnarik very much, but I'm really dismayed by this quote and the implications: "If you are here illegally you have just demonstrated that you have no respect for law and it is not immigration."
I appreciate that there are problems associated with the massive not government approved immigration from Mexico, particularly involving the US welfare state getting stuck picking up the slack from sub-living wages. That's more a reason to reform and cut back on various aspects of the welfare state than to be against immigration though, I'd argue.
But this common argument that being here illegally means that you're an outlaw is absolutely bullshit, and it's especially dismaying to hear this from a Libertarian. As a good Libertarian, Badnarik won't recognize laws that are unconstitutional. Beyond that, he won't recognize the legal legitimacy of the income tax, which is constitutional, on grounds that they are violations of our basic liberty. I'm right there with him on all that. Just because some legislature passes a law or a judge makes an edict does not automatically make it legitimate or morally binding.
But then how does someone who speaks this way turn around in the next sentence and demonize people coming here to work for people who want to hire them and rent them places to live, just because the government has arbitrarily decided that they can't?
And he's certainly kidding himself if he thinks that a serious crackdown on unapproved immigration won't involve some kind of ugly national ID crap. Jumpin' Jehosaphat, this fellow spent years refusing to get a driver's license on principle- and now he's wanting ID for people to establish their right even to walk the street.
10 - Dave Nalle
Very good point, Al. Many Libertarians believe in open borders and I did ask Badnarik about this and got a kind of cagey inadequate answer rejecting open borders but not really addressing the implications. I really wanted to take him to task on some of this, but I didnt' think it was my place as the interviewer to start lecturing him. He's a nice guy, but even though he's more sensible than the norm of Libertarians, he's still not dealing entirely in the real world.
We had an interesting talk outside of the interview about some aspects of LP politics that I didn't have any formal questions on, and apparently even the small compromises with practicality which he's made have pissed off a lot of the far-out Murray Rothbard style Libertarians - the same people who protest when Neal Boortz gets invited to speak at their convention.
Dave
11 - me
"... dumped...like most of the other 'Fighting Dems' - and he's getting no financial support from the party.."
How much is Bush paying you to claim this?
got any evidence?
I didn't think so.
12 - Dave Nalle
'me', what is your problem? The abandonment of the Fighting Dems by the DCCC is well documented. And can't you use a hyperlink? I provided a link to DailyKos specifically about how Ankrum has been dumped.
One would think that if you're a 'new democrat' you'd be outraged at Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC for their outrageous treatment of the Fighting Dems rather than taking it out on me for mentioning it.
Dave
13 - Scott
The DCCC's support (or lack thereof) for Ankrum has more to do with the 10th district's conservative leanings rather than the fact that Ankrum is a fighting Dem. You can't win them all...I suspect their money is going into more "winnable" districts.
14 - Lumoy
Doesn't this district include a big chunk of Austin? Why does that not make it good for a demoxrat?