Topic: Election 2008
"Minor Party" Presidential Interview Part 2 Charles Jay - Boston Tea Partyby Darryl W. Perry
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 3, 2008
This is the second in a series of interviews with Presidential Candidates from "minor parties"; all candidates were given the same set of questions, so that you can compare their answers.
On August 3, 2008; Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party candidate for President, sent his responses to the following questions.
Q. WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?
C.J. - Well, there are a lot of things. Among them: -- To get people thinking about achieving real freedom in their lives -- To address certain issues and interests that may not be getting attention from other candidates, but are worthwhile nonetheless -- To address issues of concern to the majority of Americans and do so from a libertarian angle -- To deliver this message in such a way that it can be easily digested by the greatest number of people -- To bring as many new ideas to the table as possible -- To come up with different and unique ways to campaign that may be unorthodox but ultimately effective -- To increase the membership of the Boston Tea Party -- To help the Personal Choice Party, another party which has nominated me -- To inspire all people to get active in some way -- To encourage young people to involve themselves in the process for the purpose of affecting long-term change -- To create the foundation from which this can all be taken to a higher level with each passing week and -- To offer any support possible to local candidates and activists, like the estimable Darryl W. Perry, who's doing such a bang-up job spreading the message of liberty in Alabama. Pretty soon, I'll be interviewing HIM!
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION?
C.J. - Yes, I can appreciate the desire on the part of people to be able to decide their own political fate; their own destiny, as it were. We couldn't possibly be the Boston Tea Party if we couldn't support something like that, right?
Q. IF SO, DO YOU SUPPORT A STATEHOOD/INDEPENDENCE VOTE FOR ALL US TERRITORIES?
C.J. - I support their right to seek proper representation for themselves, or once again, their own status. If they decided that their best interests would be served by pursuing statehood, so be it. If seeking independence is the route they take in being self-governing, fine. As it stands now, people in the territories are taxed but they obviously do not have voting members in Congress because that is not provided for. They interpret that as taxation without representation and they would be right. Of course, they must understand that under a Charles Jay administration the kind of federal dollars and support they would be looking for in any scenario, be it statehood, independence, free association or continuance as a non self-governing territory, whether that came in the form of financial aid, medical aid, military aid or whatever, wouldn't really be accessible. Would that factor into their decision? That would, by definition, be for them to determine.
Q. IF SO, WILL YOU CALL FOR A VOTE THAT WOULD INSURE A MAJORITY OUTCOME? (I.E 2 ROUNDS OF VOTING - ROUND 1 CHANGE OF STATUS? YES OR NO; ROUND 2 STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE?)
C.J. - Well, logic would dictate that a determination on whether Guam, for example, would want to change its status at all would be the first step. Then they would take it from there. Would I "call' for the plebiscite to be done under any specific format? Well, inasmuch as this is a vote on seeking a certain degree of independence, I imagine that decision, which would include the eligibility requirements for voting, would be independent of me.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS FOR ALL CANDIDATES?
C.J. - I support EASIER ballot access for all candidates. When you talk about "equal" ballot access, there could be certain semantics in play there that creates a trick bag for the smaller parties. Theoretically, everyone has equal ballot access if they can meet certain requirements. These are state-by-state decisions, obviously, but I would support less in the way of requirements, and perhaps more importantly, less discrimination against third-party efforts in terms of the peculiarities of enforcement. And I think anyone who has ever sought ballot access as a third-party candidate knows what I'm talking about. Americans need more choices, and with ballot qualification being more accessible, they will get it.
Q. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON TAXATION?
C.J. - Government will take everything they can, if you let it, because money is a source of power for them, and the more they can extract, the more power they can exercise. My choice would be that the Internal Revenue Service and the personal income tax, which to me represents an initiation of force, be eliminated and replaced with nothing. I think it can be done, as long as the emphasis is on massively reducing government spending to the level where it is authorized by the Constitution, which limits it greatly. Putting more money in everyone's pockets to spend as THEY see fit, not to spend as POLITICIANS see fit, is one of the keys to giving all Americans more choice in terms of everything they do. What I hope is that the Ted Stevens case will attract a high enough level of attention, when all is said and done, that people realize the tax dollars they send to Washington are being wasted on the ultimate self-enrichment of politicians, and that some of these people are fully capable of acting with a degree of audacity they may never have dreamed possible. And besides, I think we are always going to have a healthier economy when more spending power is in the hands of the consumer, and not in the hands of those who feel no personal responsibility whatsoever with those funds.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT A REPEAL OF THE 12TH AMENDMENT?
C.J. - Not really; not if you're asking me whether we should revert back to a system by which the second-place finisher, in effect, becomes Vice-President. I don't mind gridlock, but this might create chaos, and if I know the nature of politicians, a kind of undermining of the process that could potentially become dangerous in many ways. I see it as impracticable, anyway, because a lot of people would probably turn down the job. However, once in a while, I will admit, a sinister type like Dick Cheney comes along and makes one give this idea some thought.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE "READ THE BILLS ACT"?
C.J. - Sure I do. But I think at the same time it really says something about the state of affairs in Washington when we have to discuss a prospective bill that would actually require legislators to read the bills they vote on. It's lunacy. Yes, by all means make them do it, and don't be shy about making them sign an affidavit to that effect.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE "ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME ACT"?
C.J. - Well, let's put it this way: I think one of the biggest problems we have with lawmakers; something that is almost criminal in how it is carried out, is the way they will attach a completely unrelated bill onto another bill that stands almost a certain chance of passing, in order to "sneak" legislation through that will not have to stand any scrutiny or deliberation, and might not, under normal circumstances. It is time for "riders" like that to end, not to mention time to curb this runaway spending, bordering on thievery in many cases, which results from omnibus appropriations bills that lump hundreds and hundreds of unrelated, unconnected things together with such corpulence as to be openly insulting to any thoughtful American who is paying attention. A bill like the proposed "One Subject at a Time Act" would ideally bring this kind of gouging to a screeching halt. I could go on and on about it, but suffice it to say that, if such a thing were to pass, it would potentially be one of the most important pieces of legislation to be enacted in our lifetime. It deals with the problem, and does so very cleanly. It's an essential talking point of any campaign that wishes to reduce the size of government. Of course, the irony is that it would be so counter-intuitive to the self-interests of most of the greedy, corrupt politicians that it would probably have to itself be attached to another more popular bill, to be "snuck" through the process, almost unnoticed, in order to have any chance of passing. Yikes!
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT RETROCEDING PARTS OF DC TO MARYLAND SO THAT THE DISTRICT FITS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS OF "NOT MORE THAN 10 MILES SQUARE"?
C.J. - I could see some merit in that. Having a delegate is nice, but it is a non-voting delegate, and thus is more "observer" than anything else. Having D.C. retroceded back to Maryland, or to have D.C,. voters regarded as Maryland voters for the purposes of electing members of Congress, would give them more of a voice. Right now the federal government has jurisdiction over the governance of the District, and if one supports the reduction in the size, scope and power of government, especially on the federal level, as any candidate representing the Boston Tea Party would and should, this can not be ignored.
Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL SHOULD BE IMPEACHED IF HE/SHE VIOLATES THE OATH OF OFFICE TO "DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION"?
C.J. - Yes. And the threat of impeachment is going to keep those people, who have a trust placed in them by the people who elected them, in line. It was Lord Acton who first said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Keep these people on a short leash, and they'll "heel" when they need to.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT RATIFICATION OF THE "CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT AMENDMENT"?
C.J. - Well, that's interesting. This amendment, the first one proposed and the only one of the originals that has yet to be ratified, has its genesis in the fact that the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the size of electoral districts, presumably to make representatives more responsive to constituents. It calls for one Representative for every 50,000 people, once the total number of members exceeded 200, which we are way beyond, obviously. If implemented as written, you could conceivably be looking at as many as 6000 members of the House of Representatives. Now, that may well cut down on the rate of re-election for incumbents, which has a certain benefit, and it might indeed make Congressmen more responsive to the people within their own districts. But at the same time, and when I say this let's operate under the assumption that the "One Subject at a Time Act" hasn't passed by then, it opens things up for more special interests, more proposals, more bureaucracy, more spending, more pork, more self-justification on the part of Congress to overtax Americans. So I guess you'd have to think about whether you'd want to create the paradigm by which you could be enabling that.
Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PASSAGE AND RATIFICATION OF THE "LIBERTY AMENDMENT"?
C.J. - Yes I do. It would restrict the federal government to doing the "business" it is specifically authorized to do by the Constitution, and restricts it beyond that. It would get rid of the personal income tax. It would do just what the Boston Tea Party platform calls for, which is to reduce the size, scope and power of government. It basically creates an entire program to work off of. It covers a lot of territory, doing a whole bunch of things that make so much sense that it may not ever have a chance to pass amidst the culture that has corrupted and distorted the minds of elected officials. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to push for such things. And push hard.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Darryl W. Perry only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Darryl W. Perry is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
