Thomas Jefferson stated the Tennessee Constitution is the "least imperfect" and "most republican" Having compared to other state constitutions, I agree. Unfortunately, our present government acts outside its constraints and provisions causing harm to society. We must endeavor to adhere to the constitution.
In Tennessee citizens have a right to instruct our representatives and to apply to the government for redress of grievance or proper purpose by address or remonstrance.
These rights have been oppressed for so long, they have been wiped from our collective knowledge. Our work is to restore these rights.
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.
Vote for Governor Lee you will get illegal abortion with intentionally vague exception language.
Vote for Dr. Martin you will get the same, because the General Assembly makes law, not the governor, and the General Assembly is controlled by the corrupt Republican Party (both parties are corrupt). Martin’s website says he wants to protect “women’s rights” but doesn’t state how he will do that with a Republican Party controlled General Assembly.
Vote for John Gentry and the people will decide, and any exception language will be clear and just. I believe in the people of Tennessee to make the right decision that abortion is wrong with limited exceptions.
I read a story recently about a baby in womb who had "heart, lung, brain, kidney and genetic defects and would either be stillborn or die within minutes of birth, and carrying to term put the mother at high risk for severe pregnancy complications, including blood clots, preeclampsia and cancer."
Myself, I have an 8-month-old son who was suspected of having a heart defect in womb (he didn't), so I know first-hand things like that can happen
Here is what you need to know. All legislation is written by legislative attorneys intentionally vague so that corrupt judges can decide however they want to, because almost always, the rulings they render benefit them somehow, usually monetarily.
Here is what you also need to know. Governors don't make law. Making law is a power reserved solely to the legislative branches.
In the above case, since the abortion law language in that state was vague, as is common in all states, due to the corruption of our legislature and judiciary, the doctor would not perform an abortion for fear of losing his medical license, despite laws in that state permitting abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. Since the doctor could not determine for sure the mother would die if going to full term, the doctor didn't feel safe he would be free from prosecution.
If you learn more about my work, you will know that I am the only man with the courage, knowledge and integrity to stand up to corrupt pretended legislation that is intentionally vague for corrupt purpose. The void for vagueness doctrine states a man ought to know what a man ought not do. Most of our statutory law is void for vagueness and intentionally made so.
Here in Tennessee, we presently have a tri fecta corrupt Republican Party controlled government (again both parties are corrupt). Even if Dr Martin is elected as governor (I doubt), and because governors don't make law, Martin will prove impotent making abortion legal in Tennessee.
I believe we need to STOP this tug of war between two corrupt parties who use issues like abortion to polarize our people. It is insanity that under a tri fecta Republican Party controlled government abortion is illegal, and then under a possible tri fecta Democrat Party controlled government, abortion is legal. This insanity must stop. This insanity is tearing us apart at the seams.
When we accept party control like that, we accept to be ruled by men. My work is about ruling ourselves, restoring the power of the people to rule themselves, and restoring their constitutionally protected rights to reform government (Art I, § 1) and our right to exercise sovereignty (Art I, § 31) which is the right of the people to make law themselves.
So I propose just that! I will enable the people to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal or not. I will put the matter of abortion on the ballot for the people to decide - by the people exercising rights in Art I, § 1, § 31, § 23.
Personally, I believe abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, life of mother or well-being of mother at risk, and inviable fetus, and perhaps a few other instances. If you want to know why I believe as I do, based upon constitutional and philosophical reasoning, you can read further below in the next section SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE & ABORTION.
In 2010 I think, the people of Tennessee voted to amend the constitution "Section 36. Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion...." It was quite narrow margin on the vote, I think only about 7% greater in favor. So I expect a similar result in the future knowing we are very divided on this matter. I believe most of the people in Tennessee believe as I do, that abortion with limited exceptions is wrong.
The difference is, I will ensure that exception language in the law is clear, and that doctors can work in favor of protecting not just the life of the mother but the well-being of both as a measure.
So there are your choices. Impotence of Dr. Martin on the matter, or void for vagueness statutory law under both Dr Martin and Governor Lee, or clear exception law if I am elected unless the people decide otherwise.
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.
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.
Our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and those principles must guide us moving forward. I have been and remain a life-long student of religion and philosophy. Religious and philosophical principles are the underlying foundation of a lasting republic and harmonious society. Understanding and adherence to those principles are essential to the proper form and conduct of government.
I strongly support the free enterprise system as the best hope for men and women to fulfill their economic hopes and dreams. Free market is the most efficient and the least costly system to deliver the highest quality goods and services at the lowest price to the consumer.
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
I believe in the traditional American family, beginning with one man and one woman, are the cornerstone of our American society, and the government should protect the integrity of the family unit through legislation and tax policies.
I also believe that every person is created equal with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To that end each persons’ choice in how they pursue Life, Liberty and happiness is their own, so long as their choices do not infringe on the same rights of others.
Citizens have an unqualified right to keep and bear arms based upon the U.S. Const. Second Amendment's guarantee to individuals of that right, and upon Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Section 26.
Art. I, Sect 26 is clear;
That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
And pursuant to Tennessee Constitution, Article XI, Section 16;
The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
Article XI, Section 16 is one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson stated that the Tennessee Constitution is the “least imperfect” and “most republican”
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.
The rights of victims are enumerated in our Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Section 35. We must preserve victims' rights over the rights of any criminal.
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.
I have been a Certified Public Accountant, businessman, and entrepreneur for more than twenty years. I’ve worked for large and small business across a diverse range of businesses including; Retail, Service, Printing, Healthcare, eCommerce, Technology, Payment Processing.
I served eight years as a Force Recon U.S. Marine, and have worked as a laborer, accountant, auditor, CFO, COO, and business owner. No other candidate or incumbent brings such a diverse range of work experience or industry experience to the table.
As a businessman, I know first-hand the most effective means to create jobs is less government intrusion and regulation, creating tax incentives that provide a return on investment to the people and government, and less “pretended legislation” enacted though the lobbying efforts of the legal profession, to create torts for attorneys to bring class-action and other suits against businesses.
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:
Our nation is a Republic, not a democracy.
A republic is not democracy (rule of the many), a republic is not a monarchy (rule by one). A republic is not an oligarchy (rule by a few).
A republic is governed by rule of law. The supreme law of the land is our state and federal constitutions.
A republic is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A government where power is inherent in the people - a power exercised through vote AND through their right to instruct their representatives AND through their right to address or remonstrate (petition) to the powers of the government. See Tenn. Const. Art I, Sections 1 and 23.
The Unites States shall guarantee to every stated in this union a republican form of government: U.S. Constitution Art. IV, Section 4
The authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 L. Ed. 581, - Supreme Court, 1849. (at 42).
The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right of its citizens to petition for redress of grievances. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 23 – Supreme Court 1876 (at 553).
" "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "
Neither Supreme Court opinion, nor our federal Constitution, refer to or describe our form of government as a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC.
Copyright © 2019 WETHEPEOPLEv50STATES - All Rights Reserved.