Baldwin feels that "it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens;" hence, power must be "carefully divide[d]" among its branches and "jealously limit[ed]." The qualifications for a president are a "full understanding of the Constitution" and "knowledge of economics and foreign policy."
Baldwin sees homelessness as having several causes: poor personal choices, burdensome tax regulations or building codes, and social organizations having neglected "their responsibilities to care for those who are truly down on their luck." Because "there is no provision in the Constitution for this," the federal government should not play a role in addressing homelessness. Charities or "very local governments... have much more likelihood of legitimately addressing the real roots of the problem."
High rates of incarceration are caused by the War on Drugs and "endless new laws," which together "make it nearly impossible for Americans to not run afoul of these increasingly restrictive prohibitions." Racial disparities in incarceration, however, are a result of "a systemic problem in the Black community," namely, that "Black on Black crime is the highest segment of violent crime in the country."
The U.S. has "definitely not" found an appropriate balance between regulation and laissez-faire capitalism. "The government is still all too hands-on in the economy." Baldwin would eliminate taxes in favor of "the constitutionally prescribed method of taxation, a tariff on all imports."
Baldwin believes that America "should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs" and that it must "stop the utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling."
What is the role of the government?
That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.
What is the role of the president?
The president's role is outlined in the Constitution. See Article II, Section 1
We have seen a vast departure from this outline of official duties. The executive branch has usurped the powers of Congress.
What issue or issues are so compelling, and able to be addressed only by becoming president, that you feel you must become president to address them? Why is the presidency the best way to do so?
In Chuck's own words:
"America is on the verge of losing its independence and its national sovereignty, and both major political parties (along with a compliant national media) are equally culpable. And mark this down: when America loses its independence and national sovereignty, we also lose our freedoms and liberties. Please remember that before a Constitution and Bill of Rights could be drafted, there was first drafted a Declaration of Independence. It is the Declaration of Independence that lays the cornerstone and builds the wall of protection around the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lose the Declaration and we lose the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
No, the greatest threat to America ... comes from a complacent populace who would sit back and do nothing while our own civil magistrates surrender our nation's sovereignty and independence to international interests.
For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!"
What qualifies a person to be the president?
First, and foremost, a solid and full understanding of the Constitution, since the oath of office requires that he will uphold and defend it. Also, a knowledge of economics, and foreign policy that accords with the Constitution as it was written and intended.
If homelessness can be said to be someone's fault, whose fault is it?
A large part of the issue is personal choices that have been made. Local governments may have tax regulations or building codes that contribute to difficulty in finding and keeping a home. Social organizations have also often neglected their responsibilities to care for those who are truly down on their luck and need help to get back on their feet.
What part, if any, should the federal government play in addressing homelessness?
The federal government should not have a role in this issue at all, as there is no provision in the Constitution for this. Local community governments or non-profit organizations should be the ones addressing this issue.
Ten Year Plans to End Homelessness have sprung up around the country. They aim to eliminate homelessness essentially by doing more outreach and providing more services. Can these plans really solve homelessness or do they amount to little more than window-dressing?
However the plans are organized and laid out, so long as they are private organizations or run by very local governments they have much more likelihood of legitimately addressing the real roots of the problem than the federal government would attempting to solve a problem so diverse as homelessness.
Assaults and other forms of violence against people living outside are on the rise, according to several monitoring organizations. Should attacks on the homeless be recognized as motivated by bias against a person's economic circumstances? Should they be afforded the same penalties as hate crimes committed on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.? How might we curb attacks on the homeless?
Any violent attack by a person is a crime. A homeless person obviously has the same rights and legal defenses that any other American citizen would have. There need not be any special segregation of the homeless in order to protect them.
Have we found an appropriate balance between regulation and laissez-faire capitalism in managing our economy?
Definitely not. The government is still all too hands-on in the economy. We would abolish the Federal Reserve, and return to a sound money policy. The only tax that would be collected would be a percentage taken from imports.
Have we found an appropriate balance between individual responsibility and collective security in our economy?
Without the Federal Reserve, banks will be able to be competitive and have more freedom to have different policies and standards. This will allow people to have choices between banks and thus more personal responsibility.
Through war, catastrophe, and recession, we have largely dispensed with new taxes, and even many old taxes, in favor of funding our government's operations through foreign borrowing. Is this a sound model? Under what circumstances must we call for new taxes?
A Baldwin administration will do all possible to eliminate the IRS and federal income tax. The problem in the federal government is not that there isn't enough money, but that more is being spent than is coming in. Since we will institute a sound money policy, there is not the option to merely borrow more or print more dollars. But instead, the government will need to learn to live within its budget.
The budget will come from the income of the constitutionally-prescribed method of taxation, a tariff on all imports. This funds the government without burdening the American people at any time, not only through wars and catastrophes.
America's response to the events of September 11th was to declare a global war on terror, to overthrow two governments, and to conduct operations in many others. Is the over-arching theory underlying this- that the appropriate response is one of military force - a valid theory?
No. This thought is elaborated on in the next question's reply.
Outside of the realm of terrorism, but on a similar note, much of America's power in the world is predicated on military might and domination of other countries. Does this seem to you a good or a bad way to interact with the world?
The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. US troops, under a Baldwin administration, would no longer be used for U.N. missions all over the world. We will stop the utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling. When Chuck Baldwin becomes President, empire building and playing policeman of the world will come to an immediate halt and the United States of America will once again begin conducting itself as the Republic it was meant to be.
What does it say about America and the American people that we incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation? (751 per 100000)
The war on drugs has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being incarcerated. That, in addition to endless new laws being written, make it nearly impossible for Americans to not run afoul of these increasingly restrictive prohibitions.
What does it mean that 12% of Americans are black but 36% of prisoners are black?
Black on Black crime is the highest segment of violent crime in the country, according to FBI statistics. Using the large numbers of incarcerated Black Americans to prove " racism" because they are 'overrepresented' in the prison populations to deny that there is a systemic problem in the Black community, which is often the result of broken homes, a high rate of unwed pregnancies, lack of focus on education and poor choices.
How are we faring in the War on Drugs? What is our next move in this nearly 40-year campaign against illegal substances?
The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies, or treatments of their wish. A Baldwin administration would eliminate the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world. This would effectively de-federalize the laws on drugs and other plant substances. The War on Drugs has been a failure, and unconstitutional from the start!
Why has the USA been so ineffective in addressing climate change? What should the Federal government do?
The federal government has no provision in the Constitution to be involved in environmental issues.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the federal power of eminent domain solely to the purchase of private property with just compensation for public use, such as military reservations and government office buildings - not for public ownership, such as urban renewal, environmental protection, or historic preservation. Under no circumstances may the federal government take private property, by means of rules and regulations which preclude or substantially reduce the productive use of the property, even with just compensation.
Subsidies to certain farmers in America and other developed countries artificially deflate the price of grains. This leads to poverty among farmers in developing countries who do not receive subsidies. In what way, if any, should the federal government respond?
Again, a Baldwin administration would eliminate the federal Food and Drug Administration, which is the primary source of these subsidies. Farmers should be able to follow the market supply and demand curves and plan their crops accordingly. This would not cause any artificial deflation or change in prices.
Should the government support the media? In terms both of public broadcasting and of supporting private organizations.
If you were put in control of creating the qualifications to get on the ballot, what would these qualifications be? There is a balance of interests here, between letting candidates run and preventing a situation where there are hundreds of candidates on the ballot.
We seek the restoration of an electoral process which is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities.
The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The Federal Election Campaign Act, including its 1974 amendments, and the Federal Election Commission should be abolished.
Each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in federal and state constitutions. Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures burden unconstitutionally the fairness and accountability of our political system.
To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other, more stringent criteria.
We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Will you or your Mr. Castle be in Washington state during October?
Yes, they will be in Spokane on the 21st.
The notion of defending traditional marriage implies that it is under attack. How do non-traditional marriages attack or damage traditional marriages?
The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage.
Is traditional marriage stronger if the people who would have non-traditional marriages are single or in non-married relationships?
Does the federal government have jurisdiction over who can marry? From where in the Constitution does that jurisdiction arise?