Fifty Questions: 41-50

And so, we come to the end of our series of questions this week for Presidential debates, as formulated by Chris Sullivan of Different Bugle.

Hang on to your hats, my fellow Americans, for this fifth and final set of ten questions.

+    +    +

41. On your second day in office, what agencies and programs do you intend to propose for elimination?

See my answer to question 7.

42. What would you do if China, Iran, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya or other countries turned isolationist?

As I would be President of the United States, as opposed to being president of the countries you mention, their decisions are out of my hands. If those decisions do not in any way constitute a hostile act towards these United States, I see no reason why they would change the status of our diplomatic relations with them. Of course, I will probably talk it over with, say, my Secretary of State, Congressional leaders -- you know, the usual suspects.

43. Should the US work to reduce its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? If not, what countries should possess such weapons?

Under a foreign policy of non-intervention, toward which I as President would be inclined, it is certainly possible. I have no control over what other countries do, but I do have control over, and have an obligation to protect, these United States, and no action on my part will compromise that.

44. Is it immoral to take money by intimidation from one person and give it to another? What if a law says it's OK?

To the first question, yes. To the second question, such would in all likelihood be an unjust law, in which case the people of the United States are obliged to seek a change to it, the Congress is obliged to pass a law changing it, and I am obliged as President to sign it.

45. Explain the difference between law and legislation.

Legislation is the process by which the rules of societal conduct are made, whereas law is the rule or body of rules themselves.

46. Should people be free to ingest substances without the approval of government? If not, why is government approval needed and how does it change the act?

Laws exist for many reasons, the protection of the common good being among them. This not only applies to protection from the malfeasance of others, but the malfeasance towards oneself. Thus we have laws against suicide, to give one example.

47. How small does a business have to be before it can't expect a government bailout in bad economic times?

In this instance, to use an oft-quoted maxim, size does not matter.

48. Would you support the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and leave the Indians alone?

I would support the transformation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, into an agency dedicated to the self-determination of the Amerindian Nations, to the point where they can be left alone, and over the course of time, prosper. What form that would take would be determined on a case by case basis.

49. Would you seek the endorsement of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and perhaps have ads featuring this person or campaigning with him?

No. (By the way, that is the dumbest question you have asked so far.)

50. Given the choice of two evils, should a person abstain from voting or vote for the lesser evil?

No one is required to vote, period. Should they so decide, however, I suppose it would depend upon the evil.

+    +    +

That does it for this week, and this series of debate questions, folks. Good thing a guy like me wouldn't even have a chance to run as Dog Catcher, eh?

[Questions are the intellectual property of their author, and are reproduced here without permission or shame.]
 

Fifty Questions: 31-40

Well, the hits just keep on a-comin' here at the Black Hat Bandstand.

Our series of questions this week for Presidential debates, as formulated by Chris Sullivan of Different Bugle, continues with the fourth set of ten questions.

+    +    +

31. Is it possible to maintain good government when politicians lie regularly?

Yes, but it does become more difficult than when they do not. Fortunately, we have elections, and the people of these United States are under no obligation to keep re-electing the same losers, over and over again, who got us into this mess in the first place.

32. Will you pledge to resign from office if it can be shown that you lied to the people?

No. The President of the United States has never been required to reveal everything he knows to the American people, especially when disclosure would violate legitimate matters of national security. I will pledge to submit myself to the Congress in the event of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which I may be alleged to have committed, given the traditional understanding of that term. That pledge will take place on the day I am sworn into office. Watch for it; it will be in all the papers.

33. If you are elected, will you pledge to release all secret information regarding government crimes or unexecuted planned crimes against citizens, such as MK ULTRA, Tuskegee Experiments, Operation Northwoods, Guatemalan Syphilis Experiments, CDC Measles Experiment, etc?

In the first days after an election, the President-elect undergoes a series of detailed security briefings, where information of this sort may be included. Should nothing of those revelations be compromised as a matter of national security -- I have to obey statutory law like everyone else -- my answer is: yes.

34. When a person's moral beliefs are in conflict with a legislative edict, what should he do?

It would depend on the edict. Beyond that, I have no answer.

35. Do you favor compelling citizens to violate their conscience?

No. Nor do I favor them violating the law of the land.

36. How does compelling someone to violate his conscience differ when we do it, from when the Communists, Nazis or Fascists did it?

It would depend upon the nature of the violation. Beyond that, I have no answer.

37. If the federal debt ceiling can be raised, what is it for?

Not much. See my answer to question 4.

38. Does the Constitution give the President exclusive power over foreign policy?

No.

39. Do you consider people such as Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning and Mark Felt, heroes or traitors?

Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution as "levying War against [these United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It further states that "[n]o Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." The answer is to be found there, as opposed to my personal whim. Beyond that, I leave the aforementioned to the judgment of history.

40. If elected, would you pledge to return to the practice of reporting to congress the state of the union by letter instead of speech?

Why?

+    +    +

Hey, kids, we're almost done. Tune in tomorrow for the last installment.

[Questions are the intellectual property of their author, and are reproduced here without permission or shame.]
 

Fifty Questions: 21-30

Our series of questions this week for Presidential debates, as formulated by Chris Sullivan of Different Bugle, heads over the midweek hump with the third set of ten questions.

+    +    +

21. Hawaii has a large secessionist movement. Do you support Hawaii's right to self-determination?

A number of states have secessionist movements, some being more active than others. My answer in the case of Hawai'i is the same as for the others. See my answer to question 12.

22. Do you support and would you continue the War On Drugs?

First of all, we are losing that war. Aside from securing our borders, which is the least any nation can do for itself, I would leave it to the several States to determine the legality of substances such as marijuana, be it for medical or recreational use. Prohibition did not work the last time we tried it, although my Great-grandmother Alexander ran quite an enterprise at the farmhouse with a certain by-product of corn. Alas, that is a story for another day. Considering that I have no experience even with marijuana -- you heard it right, America; not even in college, not even once -- I would be forced to take the matter as a whole under advisement.

23.(a.) Can you explain the difference between a war, conflict, police action, and kinetic military action?

Yes. A war is declared by Congress. The others are not. In my administration, Americans would learn the difference. I would be subject to The War Powers Act, and would only engage the Nation's armed forces if the Nation's defense were dependent upon it, and for an extended period of time with the approval of the Congress.

(b.) Are there other types of military actions other than these?

Yes, I can think of one, but if I tell you once I am President, I would have to kill you. (Hey, just kidding.)

24. Do you support government control of schooling?

I believe you mean "regulate" as opposed to "control." Very well, then. At the federal level, no, which is why I would propose to the Congress that we eliminate the Department of Education. At the state level, yes, inasmuch as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution grants them that prerogative. Let the teachers' unions make their case where, in the words of Thomas O'Neill, "all politics is local."

25. In your opinion, who was the worst president, and why?

I should first say that my answer does not include the current President, as his term is not completed, therefore impeding a fair assessment. That said, there were several Presidents who could be considered to have performed poorly in office. If I had to choose one, it would be Warren G Harding, as he had the good sense to admit to his intimates that he should never have been elected in the first place. As he was there at the time and I was not, who am I to argue with him?

26. In your opinion, who was the best president, and why?

The first one, as George Washington set the tone for the role of the Presidency with the proper dignity and humility as has come to befit the office -- ostensibly.

27. In your opinion, what was the worst decision by the Supreme Court?

I have two answers, as they are very close. The first is Roe v Wade, as a right to privacy per se is found nowhere in the Constitution, to say nothing of its usurpation of the rights of states on the matter in question, and basis upon that which has been subsequently determined to be false testimony. Running a close second would be Kelo v City of New London. If a republic can lay claim to a man's private property for the sole benefit of another man's personal profit, as opposed to genuine public interest as is the pretense for rights of imminent domain, it ceases to be a republic by any known definition, and becomes a dictatorship. That said, if nominated for Dictator, I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve.

28. Do you support government control of the internet?

I support government regulation of interstate commerce, as does the Constitution. Beyond that, I would leave the internet alone to regulate itself.

29. Do you support turning airline security over to the airlines?

The skies are owned by the people as held in public trust, but the airlines are owned privately. The former would hold the latter accountable, through their duly elected officials, rather than assume the task themselves. This would exclude any violations of the Fourth Amendment concerning unreasonable search and seizure.

30. How can anyone be said to be free when the government has a prior claim on all he earns?

One cannot be said to be free under those conditions, which would explain my answers to questions 16, 17, and 18.

+    +    +

Tomorrow, this writer is guaranteed to live even more dangerously. (Hey, you still with me?)

[Questions are the intellectual property of their author, and are reproduced here without permission or shame.]
 

Fifty Questions: 11-20

Our series of questions this week for Presidential debates, as formulated by Chris Sullivan of Different Bugle, continues with a second set of ten questions.

+    +    +

11. If a state chooses to nullify a federal law, what action would you take?

It would depend on the law, and whether the authority of that law is more proper to the several States. I contend that the Founding Fathers meant what they said when they wrote something down, as most of us are wont to do, which is why I support a strict interpretation of the Constitution. As President, I swear allegiance to that Constitution. My action would take that obligation into account.

12. If a state were to secede from the union, what action would you take?

Historically, when a territory petitions to become a State, a relationship is formed with the whole, becoming symbiotic over time. This includes a share of federal infrastructure, and various forms of federal assistance, such as would not be possible were that territory to remain on its own. Any attempt at secession would require that I as President, petition the Congress to determine the full measure of compensation as beneficiary of that relationship, such that I would then, to the extent provided under the law, use my executive powers to exact it. Obviously, very few States are in a position to meet that requirement for self-determination, thus I do not expect a secessionist movement to be undertaken lightly.

13. Do you support repeal of laws compelling acceptance of government-issued money [legal tender laws]?

As is an internationally accepted criterion of sovereignty, the United States through the federal government has the legitimate authority to issue currency, as a means of legal tender for all debts, public and private. The short answer: Yes.

14. Has the US ever fought an enemy who was honorable? Which ones?

At least one; itself. In the War Between the States, Americans fought against Americans, and a state of truce was frequently enacted, so that those on either side could not only barter for goods, but learn of news from home or family. To suggest that one side was dishonorable would suggest that the other may have been as well. I am loathe to endeavor attaining high office of a nation determined to be any less.

15. Were the attacks on the Marine barracks in Beirut, or the USS Cole, terrorist attacks or attacks on a legitimate military target?

Yes to both.

16. What is the maximum amount – not percentage – that anyone should have to pay in taxes?

Taxation based upon a percentage of earnings has historically been a criterion for determining the amount of taxation. The question presumes that this is not the case, and is therefore not a fair question. I am not compelled to answer.

17. Do you support abolition of the income tax?

Eventually, yes, in favor of a national sales tax, among other measures that were the staple of the federal government's revenue before the income tax was imposed in peacetime. Until Congress sees fit to pull that together, I support a flat tax of no more than seventeen percent (that is, just over one-sixth) of personal income.

18. Why is discrimination prohibited, but is the basis for a progressive tax?

See the answers to questions 16 and 17.

19. Is simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," torture? If not, define the word torture.

Thankfully, this word already has a definition: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion, and/or an instrument or a method for inflicting such pain." Simulated drowning inflicts physical discomfort to the extent of being painful, which explains why most people try to avoid any form of drowning. Therefore waterboarding is torture.

20. Do you support transferring federal lands to the states in which they are located?

If I own a parcel of land in a municipality, and they wish to acquire it for their own purpose, it is reasonable to expect compensation at fair market value. Likewise, if the federal government cannot make the case for the common good being served by holding real property in any one of the several States, my answer is yes. Even so, proper compensation over the long term, based upon fair market value if necessary, must be arranged.

+    +    +

Tomorrow's segment is guaranteed to cover dangerous ground. You have been warned.

[Questions are the intellectual property of their author, and are reproduced here without permission or shame.]
 

Fifty Questions: 1-10

Chris Sullivan of Different Bugle has developed a list of fifty questions to ask Presidential candidates during a debate. He thinks he can come up with more, but fifty seems to be a handful for them as it is. If I had my way, every candidate would have to fill out a questionnaire like this one, and it would be posted on the internet by the League of Women Voters or some other neutral party. But they're all too chicken. Fortunately, that's not a problem here at mwbh. So, every day this week, Monday through Friday, we will answer ten at a time.

+    +    +

1 (a.) All of you who use an income tax preparer, raise your hand.

(Raised hand.)

(b.) If you (who raised hands) can not prepare your own taxes, how do you propose to run the country?

The same way I would if running anything else; I would find smart people who knew a little bit more than I did in various and sundry matters, and surround myself with them. It's called "delegating." I would no more apologize for it than the rest of you idiots do for yourselves.

2. If you can not prepare your own tax returns, is it reasonable to hold the average citizen criminally liable for errors?

If "the buck stops" with me, it stops with them too. A smart taxpayer will use a preparer who agrees to represent them in the case of an audit. He would also sit with the preparer as the work is being done. (Yes, I do.)

3. How do you expect to understand bills sent to you for your signature if you can't fill out a tax return?

Taxes are prepared; bills are read. There is a difference. Duh. I will read the bill, give portions to my senior policy staff to read, review a two-page summary prepared by the staff in addition reading to the full bill, and go from there.

4. At what point will the national debt be "too high"?

At least thirty years ago. The debt should be based upon the ability to back it with available assets, if only as a contingency. I would use the early 1970s as a benchmark, when the debt was less than one percent of the GDP, and taxes were still relatively low.

5. What is the case law giving the federal government power to prohibit the possession of drugs?

What case law there is would most likely be unconstitutional. Unless specifically called for, I would propose to turn that power over to the several States. The federal role would be limited to regulation of interstate commerce, which is within the limits of the Constitution, and would control most nefarious usage of illegal substances.

6. Assuming all of you are against waste, fraud and abuse; what specific programs and agencies do you propose to eliminate?

The assumption here is that if a program and/or agency is eliminated, the demand for that which is provided by its mission is not. That said, it is the wrong question to ask. The right question would be: what services should the American people no longer expect at the federal level?

7. Should any federal departments or programs ever be eliminated, if so, which ones?

It is my contention, that the need to preserve the Union during the War Between the States, created the byproduct of a significant increase in the role of the central government in relation to the several States. Therefore, most cabinet level agencies formed after that conflict would be subject to particular scrutiny under any proposal I would make to the Congress.

8. How many military bases does the U.S. maintain in foreign countries?

Too many.

9. How many do you propose to close?

Whichever ones are not essential to the common defense of the United States, as called for in its Constitution. My proposal would be determined based upon a recommendation by a joint working group of the White House and the Departments of State and Defense. Other nations may have to learn to take care of themselves.

10. How much does it cost to keep the above-mentioned bases in operation?

More than we can afford. See answers to questions 8 and 9, to say nothing of 4.

+    +    +

Keep checking back throughout each day, as they won't be answered all at once. Facebook readers will have an opportunity to take time out from looking at blog pictures of nuns in full habit playing ice hockey to provide their own responses in the comments section. AND ... in the interest of full disclosure, if nominated I will not run, and if elected I will not serve. The pay and benefits are really great, but personally, I don't like the hours.

[Questions are the intellectual property of their author, and are reproduced here without permission or shame.]