I would like to propose the following questions for the Candidate Questionnaire, or at least similar topics covered:

1. Will you vote for or against a bill to require students to finish school through the 12th grade, not allowing them to drop school, unless they have reached the age of 18, joined the military, or has an extreme family hardship requiring them to work, and to bring back truant officers to enforce this rule?

2. Will you vote for or against a bill to ban special interest lobbyists?

3. Will you vote for or against a bill to reduce frivolous lawsuits, including malpractice lawsuits?

4. Will you vote for or against a bill to eliminate the government budgeting policy of “use or lose”? Government agencies frivolously spend billions of dollars at the end of each budget year because they are afraid they will lose what they have not spent and are afraid that their budget will be cut by the same amount the following year.

5. Will you vote for or against a bill to eliminate drug, sexual item, and lawyer advertising from television, as it used to be? This way parents will not have to explain what ED is to their kids, doctors wont get bugged by their patients to prescribe certain drugs, and will bring back some respect back to the legal field.

6. Will you vote for or against a bill to bring back the truth in advertising law, and eliminate the need for the fast scrolling “fine print” that you can’t even read on TV or listen to on the radio?

7. Will you vote for or against a bill to provide incentives to businesses to keep jobs from going overseas?

8. Will you vote for or against a bill to put more regulation on credit bureaus providing fairness to the consumer?

9. Will you vote for or against a bill to bring back parent’s rights to parent their children?

10. Will you vote for or against a bill to put a cap on medical malpractice lawsuits?

There are a number of great ideas from Downsize DC that I feel are candidates for inclusion in the questionaire.

1. The Enumerated Powers Act. The act would require all laws include the article and section in the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the right to enact the law.

2. The Write The Laws Act. The act requires Congress, not bureaucrats to actualy write the legislation.

3. The Fiscal Responsibility Act. The act triggers a Congressional pay cut for each year the federal government runs a deficit.

In addition to these three, a question regarding the return to sound money and the elimination of the Federal Reserve should also be included.

As far as the phrasing of the questions for these issues is concerned, I'll leave that to the Questions Committee.

Just a few suggestions.

Thanks,
Dan

I would like to ask them if they have, at any time, received money from special interest groups? Will the money received in any way influence your ability to vote? Do you work for We the People or your own special interests?

Sabreena

If ya'll really want to understand why our society is the way it is, google "commercial redemption" and search for "Winston Shrout" on youtube.

Try googling "United States corporation" and see what comes up at the top of the list, then hounddog it to understand what is really going on. The key is Merchant Law, contract law, and remedy.

Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or “without day.” This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there were no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum.

Lincoln's second executive order of April, 1861, called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority of the Constitution. In his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, “Congress” has not met based on lawful process. Our current “Congress” is based on a legal fiction not much different than a proper name written in all caps.

Legal fiction “laws”, such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were soon instituted by Lincoln and thus became the basis for our current “laws.” Every purported “Act” in effect today is based on legal fiction, not lawful due process.

An idea for a law that I've always thought should be enacted:

Would you be in favor or against a requirement that all law enforcement officers reside in the jurisdiction they serve?

I would like to see a question that addresses the threat of our Constitution being threatened by Treaties that encroach on our rights... like the UN 'child rights' treaty that will abdicate my rights as a parent to the State...

or the Treaty of the Sea... this is downright evil if passed...

or a new treaty being discussed with Mexico to 'wrangle in' the so called illegal gun sales which is a back door to shut down your right to reload ammo, and ban weapons 'deemed' as assault (anything with a scope and looks scary to the gun grabbers)

If Congress can't get it's ways with our own laws, they will be able to 'back door' many oppressive laws through making treaties with other countries and the UN 'for the betterment of the World"

Internationalism is a major threat to our Sovereignty

Would you vote for or against a bill requiring each member of the electoral college to certify the presidential candidate upon which their vote shall be cast has met the qualifications as defined in the Constitution?

Actually, along the lines of limiting lawsuits, I believe we are heading in the wrong direction with, "tort reform". I was a paralegal for over 11 years, most of that time working for insurance defense firms.

My philosophy is that we should create a "loser pays" system. Today, every plaintiff attorney with his picture on a billboard will file suit against anyone for anything. They have nothing to lose. Most cases will settle, so they get paid for doing virtually nothing, and they stand to make a big payday.

Here is my proposal: leave it like it is; anyone can sue anyone for any reason. However, let the plaintiff lawyer put up a bond for their clients. This bond should be sufficient to cover, in the event that he loses the case, the court costs, the costs of defending the lawsuit, that being the defendant's legal fees and the amount lost by the defendant for travel, depositions, meeting with attorneys, etc. Also, do away with "settlements" and try every case. Like I said, plaintiff attorneys have nothing to lose in filing lawsuits, because the majority of defendants or their insurance companies will settle just to be rid of them, and if a case settles for $10,000.00 and he gets 30% and he has 300 clients in any given year, that is $900,000.00 in his pocket for very little work. If an attorney has to put up a bond and risk his own money on every case and has to try every case, he is going to make sure he is handling cases with validity, not just every scrub that wants to make a buck by suing. It will cut down on the number of "lottery lawsuits" and suits filed to harass someone.

On the other hand, if you have, let's say a doctor who is sued regularly and loses, this is going to cost his insurance company much money, since being the losing side they must now pay all the costs created by the lawsuit. They are not going to take kindly to that, so they will drop the haphazard medico and he will not be able to practice without insurance. Eliminating these types of lawsuits by attrition of bad medical providers should, in theory, also bring down the cost of med-mal insurance, because incompetent doctors will be out of the system. Thus, health care costs have been refined, since they blame so much of their high prices on costs of insurance, and with less claims the cost of their insurance in general should go down. The court system will not be bogged down by trying every case because there will be many less cases filed.

I am for any question about "tort reform" especially loser pays. But how about one step further with the legal counsel for the loser paying 40% of the costs of attorney fees.

And where are the questions for national defense. "The best way to avoid war is to prepare for war". We need a strong national defensive to be used for NATIONAL DEFENSE. We need the pay, equipment, strategy and above all the removal of the rules of engagement which prolong the wasting of life on both sides of a conflict.