Tennessee Constitution

Government mandates, as a form of martial law, are prohibited to govt. in Art. I, Sect. 25 state constitution, as inconsistent with the principles of a free government.
Constitutionally prohibited to govt., and for the same reasons, such power should also be prohibited to all agencies & business formations.

The solution to the current moral decline in our nation is a return to the principles and standards of morality which our Founding Fathers placed into the Constitution. Essential to our right of self-government, are the unalienable and indefeasible rights stated in our Tennessee Constitution, Art. I, Section 1. 

Also, essential to self-government is the right of citizens to instruct our representatives, petition our government for redress or other proper purposes by address or remonstrance. See Tenn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23. These rights have been forgotten or we have been intentionally kept ignorant of these rights. I endeavor with all my being to restore these rights. 

I support the right of parents to choose how and where to provide for their children’s education. 

Most importantly, our public schools must be mandated to properly teach civics, including our history and founding principles, and the Tennessee Constituti

Life begins at conception and continues to the end of natural life. It is proper and just that all human beings, including preborn children, possess the same unalienable rights as all other people, and are entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.

Like our founders, much of my ethical and moral standards are based in religious and philosophical principals. Religious and philosophical principles provide rational and reasonable explanation of what is to be considered rightful or wrongful conduct. Much of my philosophy in determining the difference between right and wrong is based on the modern philosophy of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1971), a variant of the social contract theory.

Essentially, Rawls defines a rightful action, as one that a rational and reasonable person would choose in their “original position”. “Original position” is not knowing your station in life, not knowing if you are the victim or perpetrator, not knowing if you are the fetus or the person choosing to abort a fetus. 

Under Rawls’ Theory of Justice, each interested party is included in the “vote” on whether a choice or action is right or wrong.

Would any rational reasonable person vote in favor of slavery, not knowing if they would end up a slave or slave owner? Would any rational reasonable person, choose to abort a preborn child, not knowing if they were to become the aborted fetus or the aborting doctor or parent? Of course not.

Moreover, we must all be responsible for the actions we take. Responsibility of each person for their own conduct is fundamental to our society. And so, when a man and woman choose to engage in an act of procreation, without contraception, they become responsible for the results of that act. To assert otherwise is to throw out thousands of years of legal doctrine, religious and philosophical principles, and the principles upon which this nation was founded. 

State and federal taxes and fees are generally abusive to the American people while discouraging investment and growth. We must gradually eliminate punitive income taxes, and fees that are essentially double taxation, and move our tax system toward that originally established by our Founding Fathers.

I hold with the founders of our Republic in the supremacy of the power of individual citizens over the powers they choose to delegate to the state, a principle enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. 

Only a small government truly serves the needs of the people and that those governments closest to the people are most responsive to their needs. I affirm the principle of Federalism, and its establishment in the form created by the Founders.

It is my strong opinion that lawful immigration is not only appropriate but essential to maintaining who we are as a nation and republic. Illegal immigration should be eliminated as much as possible. Illegal immigration is unfair to those who seek to enter this nation lawfully. For those immigrants fleeing their government en masse due to oppression, I equate that to cowardice. See Law of Nations, Paragraph 3 noted below. 

Regarding immigration, I rely on the same sources and arguments our founders relied upon – The Law of Nations, a legal treatise on International Law by Vatttel, published in 1758. 

Benjamin Franklin stated that the Law of Nations “"has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting" United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 US 452 - Supreme Court 1978.

Law of Nations Book I Chapter XIX §220. Whether a person may quit his country. pgs. 220-222

1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born: they are under an obligation to shew themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought therefore to love it, as we have already shewn (§122),—to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible by serving it in turn.We have observed above (§212), that they have a right to enter <104> into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,* and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another,
or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form
of law, or by violence.

2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and
acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like
those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with
society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty,—in a word, between the internal and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them: and this is the case of every citizen with respect to his country.

3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a
time of danger, and seek to secure themselves instead of defending it,—
they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting
parties engaged to defend themselves in an united body, and in concert: