Questions for the candidates

These are questions I would ask of our candidates for President.
Hell, I would ask these questions to a candidate for dog catcher.
In fact, the answers of each candidate on these questions should be posted
at every polling place.


* What form of national government do we live under?

Lets face it..... every student who pays attention in the eighth grade should get this one right. More to the point: How can someone possibly function as they should as President if they don't even understand the most basic structure of our government?

To those who feel lost, and don't have an eighth grade social studies book handy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. It's a neat thing. Try looking it up and see if the notion bears any resemblance to the reality.

* What is the highest percentage of income any one person should ever pay in taxes? Total taxes: federal, state, local, fees, SSI, everything?

What do you think? Should someone be forced at gun point to pay 100% of their income? NO?!?

Well, that is how taxes in this nation work..... pay them, or a man with a gun comes to your door and forces you to. At it's rawest and most basic nature, thats how it works. I think we can all agree that 100% is too much. Now, lets haggle over the upper limit, since 100% is not it.

How about 75%? Maybe 50%?

Remember, we are talking total tax burden.... everything the government takes from an individual for any reason or cause.

The number right now stands at over 50% total income is shifted from the individual tax payer to the government in it's various forms.

How much is too much? "More" is not an allowable answer.

* Should lawmakers be allowed to vote on legislation they haven't read personally?

I would think this one is common sense, but that concept seems to have little to do with government.

Many laws and packages can be published in book form. Big, nasty, fine print, no picture, legalsleeze, multi-volume, book form. Knowing this I fail to understand how legislation can go from final form to vote in less than a day or two, as is often the case. The answer seems inescapable.... lawmakers are voting on legislation without know what they are voting on.

This is akin to a doctor prescribing your surgery after nothing more than a muffled twelve second phone call through an interpreter who speaks neither language.

Our elected representatives are imposing laws on us that will change our lives and family fortunes forever. They are doing so with little or no real idea of what they are doing (and that is the most charitable way of looking at it).

* Should a law be permitted to be written in language that ordinary citizens cannot understand?

We as citizens are responsible for obeying the laws passed by our representatives.
The problem is, most of these laws are so convoluted that even attorneys and judges cannot figure them out, let alone the common public.

Incomprehensible law is bad law, period. I think every piece of legislation should be laid out in public, and people asked to explain what it means. If less than 60% of the respondents cannot articulate the purpose and limits of the law, then it should be sent back to Congress for repair. That allows for a 40% moron factor.
If less than 80% of the people in congress can figure out what it means, then the authors should be fired.

* Do individuals have the right to defend themselves against personal violence and crime?

A simple and basic question. Do individuals have the right to defend themselves against crime? Against violent encounters? Against abuses of their civil rights?
Do people have a right to self defense, or not?

Just....... answer......... the .............question.

YES or NO?

* If an individual has a right to defend their self against violence, then do they also have a right to own a means to that self defense?

If the answer above is no, then the candidate can skip this question. In fact, he/she can probably just skip them all. At that point they are so alien to American thought.... well.... these questions will make no sense at all to them.

If the answer is yes.... (people do have a right to defend themselves against violence and crime), then don't they also have a right to own the means?

This is not rocket science, and here's an example to make it easier:
It's on the same level as saying people have a right to breath, and keep their heads above the water at the same time.

* When is it moral for a government to do that which is judged immoral for an individual to do

Thanks to the spirit of Robert Heinlein for this one. It's a simple question with far reaching repercussions. If it's immoral for a person to kill another for profit, is it thus immoral for a government to do the same? How far can we take that idea?
Best be careful.... the concept is tricky.

* Should government employees be held accountable to the same laws as ordinary citizens? ALL government employees, and in ordinary courts of law?

Right now, many elected officials, government employees, and government organizations are immune to the laws ordinary citizens must live under.
A simple case in point: Congressmen and Senators have voted themselves removed from the Social Security Program, as well as many tax laws.
Another case in point: Government and military vehicle are exempt from the environmental and pollution rules governing civilian vehicles, as well as registration requirements, insurance requirements, and inspection requirements.

Should this practice of double standards and class divisions be continued?

* Should elected officials be held accountable to the same laws as ordinary citizens? Will YOU obey the same laws as any other citizens?

Not a trick question. Just answer it.

Pass this list around. Add to it. Mail it to your senators, congressmen, and any other elected official you would care to. Expect answers.