As Todd Platts announces his retirement from the House of Representatives, Eric Martin announces his candidacy for the Republican Nomination for Pennsylvania’s 4th District for the U.S. Congress. (because of redistricting Todd Platt’s old 19th District will essentially become the new 4th District)
Eric is the Liberty candidate in this Republican primary. He is endorsed by http://www.liberty-candidates.org/, please see here for more information.
Read more of the introduction below, or jump right into where Eric stands on some of the most pressing issues of our time, read about the campaign’s latest events, read more about Eric, volunteer for the campaign, or donate to the campaign.
Eric believes in a limited role for the Federal Government, based on the principles outlined in the United States Constitution. The Founders had the backdrop of an oppressive England, and the Constitution was drafted to limit the federal government, specifically so that the United States was not a repeat of England.
Here is a group of highlights from a debate which will give you an overview of Eric’s views on a few topics:
Here’s a little clip of an awesome comment from the audience, and Eric Martin’s response to the whole audience: a great introduction to where he is coming from:
The following is a video interview done by PCN, and gives a good overview on where Eric stands:
You can see the original interview at: http://pcntv.com/blog/2012/02/29/feb-28-on-the-issues-election-2012-with-eric-martin/
The number one thing that any congressperson or any president should ask when considering any legislation, is “Where is this legislation authorized in the Constitution?”. If it is not authorized it should not be voted for or signed into law. The current problems of our government are because the Legislature and President have gone against the Constitution in so many areas, over many decades; and this has happened regardless of party, leadership, or ideology. Most of what the Federal government is doing is unconstitutional and would have embarrassed our Founding Fathers. Everyone in government can rally around the Constitution, because no one can blame anyone for following the Supreme Law of the Land, which legislators and presidents have already sworn or affirmed to uphold.
Eric is 26 years old and has a huge incentive to right the ship that is the United State Federal Government. He has more of an incentive to right the ship than any of the other candidates because he is so young. The problems this country has will affect him soon, and probably in the prime of his life. He has no choice but to fix them as soon as possible, and has no ability to pass the problems off to future generation, because he is the future generation.
Please read about where Eric stands on some of the most pressing issues of our time, read about the campaign’s latest events, read more about Eric, volunteer for the campaign, or donate to the campaign.
“I hope to win the nomination and ask that you stand with me in limiting the role of the Federal Government, while expanding rights and freedoms for the individual and the state of Pennsylvania.” -Eric Martin
Site Paid for by Eric Martin.
good luck.
Thank you.
Republicans are paid by big business and the wealthy to vote their way. Democrats work for common citizens. You appear to be avoiding which one you belong to.
I’m for the people. I want the Federal Government out of our personal and economic lives. Generally, Republicans want to limit personal freedom by making laws about moral issues, but want to limit the government in the economic realm, with less regulations and less entitlements. Democrats tend to want the opposite: more entitlements, more regulations, and less government involvement in moral issues. I want less government involvement in both realms. I want the Federal Government out of our economic and personal lives with less regulation, less handouts, and less laws about moral issues.
I was impressed by your candor
Thank you, Paul.
Mr.Martin,
When faced w/ the possibilities of voting to send our troops overseas and into harms way & as we begin to rattle sabres w/ Iran and possibly Syria, what is your stance?
If elected, what would you do to BETTER represent your constituents in Washington?
What would you do different than your predecessor?
We look forward to seeing you make our Commonwealth a better place to live, learn and work through your voice in the Chamber.
I wish you best of luck!
Thanks Zach…. I’ll answer part of this now. With Iran and Syria, I will not go to war unless I see evidence that there is a viable, significant threat. Which means it would probably need to be nuclear. Also, they would need to directly threaten us with words or actions. If an action against them is necessary for the safety of this country, I would not give the President the authority to declare war or go to war without an emergency situation. What I would is as the constitution prescribes. Congress would have to write a bill describing the war and its parameters, and then it would be voted on. I would be very prayerful and mindful of the lessons of history: war should be used as a last resort, and it must be a just war. I’m committing to a just war in the Christian sense of the word. When the war bill is drafted, it must define the enemy, the reason for going to war (including grievances also possibly damages done), it must define the terms of winning, the conditions of winning and also of surrender for the enemy, and it must also lay out a plan to win and the appropriations of money and resources to ensure that win). These are prerequisites for war, as is a lot of prayer and the wisdom of the multitude of counselors.
I believe war is the most grave issue facing any country. I look at it with absolute seriousness and solemness, and appreciate the wisdom, council, and prayer of others.
Great response Eric. We need to bring our troops home and stop nation building!
Definitely. Thank you so much.
I’m intrigued by your response. I’d add an exit strategy. What would you do to limit the purchasing of your (and other elected officials’) favor? How would you try to cut the budget? What bills would you most like to sponsor/work to see passed? What is your stance on the so-called tax cuts of the very rich?
Great questions.
One way elected officials can limit the purchasing of their favor is by limiting their power. When officials have less power, less people want to purchase it. Baron Acton said, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Congress in particular has the tendency to give people more power the longer they are in office. Congressman Platts set a precedent of six term, twelve year limits for people in the House of Representatives. I will follow this precedent and self-impose a twelve year term limit on my stay in the House. Also, I will support amendments to the Constitution which create term limits.
I would cut the budget by never voting to raise the debt ceiling. This will force government to cut back on spending. I will work to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are quite costly and are unconstitutional because they were never declared by Congress. There are also a few departments of the Federal government which I would work to get rid of entirely, because much of their functions are not authorized in the Constitution. I would work to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and others. It will be hard to get rid of these departments immediately, so in the mean time I can work to get rid of their most damaging effects. Relating to education, I will try to repeal No Child Left Behind, which is a failure because it takes educational decisions out of the hands of parents and teachers, and puts it into the hands of bureaucrats. Every child is unique and requires different learning strategies based on his or her particular needs. And one more example, relating to healthcare, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, made law in 2010. This law is a failure because it effectively socializes medicine in the United States. In the short run people will be forced to by health care for themselves, or pay a penalty. And as I see the law, in the long run insurance companies will be broken because of the heavy regulations which the law places on them, and the government will become the only insurer left. This leads us to a single payer system like Canada, where one month to six month waits are not uncommon for needed health services.
Most of the things I would like to sponsor and see passed are not bills but rather amendments to the Constitution. I’d like to see an amendment for term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Beyond this the repeal of the above mentioned bills, No Child Left Behind and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, would be really nice to see. I would like to legislate free trade agreements with as many countries as possible, and I would like to support energy independence by approving more nuclear power plants and approving more offshore drilling, drilling in the ANWR region in Alaska, and approving pipelines such as the Keystone XL pipeline which would be a catalyst for more jobs in the United States and create greater energy diversity. Each of these energy items is a very small piece in the larger energy puzzle, but if Congress can work hard to allow the utilization of as many energy resources as possible, the United States can be one step closer to true energy diversity and independence. Less regulations on business in every area will be worked towards, but especially regulations on the actions of a business within a state’s borders. It is unconstitutional for government to be regulating business in this area, and believe Federal regulation is one of the major causes of the decline of the United States’ competitiveness in the global economy. Greater competitiveness means more jobs and more revenue for the Federal government. A less important but more innovative item which I would like to legislate has to do with modernization of the legislative process. I would like to create the ability for Representatives and Senators to do more remote voting and remote conferencing through the use of technology, with the goal of keeping elected officials closer to their constituents, and also saving money on travel expenses.
You said, “What is your stance on the so-called tax cuts of the very rich?” I’m not sure which ones you are talking about. I read about a proposed plan by Mitt Romney to cut taxes for all people by 20%, including the very rich. I would love to do this as long as we can cut back on spending in many areas and in huge ways so that we can still balance the budget and at least slowly start paying off some of our debt. I believe at some point in Thomas Jefferson’s life Jefferson wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The amendment he called for was so strict that expenditures must equal revenues and there was no provision for an exception to this rule in the case of war. I think this is a great idea. It would force the United States to amend the Constitution in order to go into a war that required debt. But realistically, step number one for me and all legislators should be to start following the Constitution, because if we’re not following it now, why would we follow new amendments to it? The first question every legislator and every president should ask when considering a law should be, “Where is this law authorized in the U.S. Constitution?” If one can’t answer where it’s authorized, the response should be a “no”, a “nay”, or a veto to the proposed law.
Thank you for the questions, Cindy.
Mr. Martin,
As a combat veteran (1st Gulf War), the son of a combat veteran(WW2 PTO) and the father of a combat veteran(and serving US Army NCO) Afganistan and Iraq I agree with your stance on war “to a point”. We must be prepared to defend our nation and our allies with force of arms when ever an open threat occurs. We should never limit ourselves to a nuclear threat. I concur that a declaration of hostilities should be enacted by Congress. In the current state of affairs immediate action may be a necessity and we should be prepared to act with immediate intent.
Thank you for your response and I will keep it in mind. I do want to be clear that I believe with the President being the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy he has authority over the whole U.S. military at all times. However, he should only bring that military into use without a Congressional declaration of war in order to protect our nation. If in order to protect the country he needs to summon the military immediately and doesn’t have time for Congress to act, he can summon the military immediately without a Congressional declaration of war.
Which Presidential candidate most aligns with your core philosophy and beliefs?
Hi Fred. I believe Ron Paul most aligns with my core philosophy and beliefs, and I hope he would agree. I support Ron Paul for President in 2012. I’ve heard from another candidate for Federal office that Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty conducts a survey of people seeking public office. I have called the Campaign for Liberty in order to take the survey, and I think they are in the process of sending it to me because I gave them my mailing address. Thank you for the question.
Eric, you mentioned the Constitution a lot in the debate on March 1. In fact, it seems like your entire campaign is about restoring an adherence to the Constitution. What exactly does that mean? Can you give some examples of instances in which the Constitution is being violated and then articulate how you would go about restoring compliance as a member of Congress? In your answer, please be clear about your manner of interpreting the Constitution.
Thanks.
Restoring the Constitution means getting the Federal Government back to where the founders intended it to be. My specific manner of interpreting the Constitution primarily has to do with the enumerated powers and the interstate commerce clause. The enumerated powers, and a few others from the amendments, are the sole powers of the legislature, with the President perhaps having a few other executive international affairs and war time powers. The interstate commerce clause is wrongly interpreted to allow Federal regulation of Agriculture and many other things, when in fact it was intended to allow the regulation of one physical good crossing from one state border into another for the purpose of commercial gain. I want to get back to this, and get rid of the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, etc., particularly their unconstitutional functions which regulate any activity within a state’s borders. I would restore the Constitution by not voting to fund any of the unconstitutional parts of these departments, which is most of them. I will also write and offer up bills which repeal these Departments and their functions. I will not vote to create any more unconstitutional departments, either.
The US Government is in over 10 Trillion dollars of debt. No one seems to want to cut entitlement spending (or spending in general) enough to reconcile this disaster in the making.
What makes you so confident that you will stand up to the forces of special interest that have far more clout, experience, money and tenacity to defend their current status quo (in the form of billions in government grants, e.g.)?
Keep in mind, the cuts that are necessary WILL cause much suffering. It’s just a matter of when and where. Either those cuts come voluntarily and humanely ushered, or they will come in the form of economic disaster.
What are your glorious plans in ushering in this new era of post-collapse economics in America?
I think that you are largely correct. However, my plans aren’t glorious, and the real collapse hasn’t happened yet. Hopefully enough like-minded Representatives in Washington can turn the tide with massive cuts before the collapse. For me to follow through with this on a personal level, my number one goal is that any time a bill or resolution comes up for vote, I will first ask where it is expressly authorized in the U.S. Constitution. If it is not, I will have to vote ‘yes’ to the Constitution and ‘no’ to the bill. Beyond this I am for true free trade, open to all reasonable energy resources, want to scale back our military around the world, and get rid of foreign aid. I am one vote out of 435, but hopefully my one vote, along with others’ votes from those who are starting to wake up to the reality of America’s unsustainable mess, will get us out of the problem before it implodes, but it will be tough.
The biggest question and issue people have is: why trust Eric to follow through, when most of the other candidates are saying similar things? My answer is two-fold. One reason you should trust me is because I’ve written out my platform: a ‘no’ vote to anything not expressly authorized in the Constitution, no tax increases, and no increase in the debt ceiling. Have the other candidates written these things? Have they written out their platform? The second reason you should trust me is because I am a person of integrity. I am not perfect, but lying is hard for me to do. On a personal level, if I didn’t virtually entirely follow through on what I’ve said I would do, I would quit after my first term or even resign. I handle horribly the personal anxiety and guilt that comes with lying.
I am telling you what I will do, and I think the other candidates largely aren’t telling you what they will do; and I’m telling you to hold me to it, and I will hold myself to it because of my natural tendency to abhor lying. I fret even over white lies and sometimes am too brutal when being honest with people. The other thing you should know is that I have never been one to go with the crowd just because the crowd is going in one direction. I tend to make my decisions independently of what other people are doing.
I like what I have read on your issues page. Will you be at the Candidate’s night to listen at York College on monday? You and Mike Koffenberger seem to be right on the money.
You’ve got it. I’ll be there and I hope to see you there as well. You can read about the event details here: http://ericmartinforcongress.com/2012/03/07/candidates-night-to-listen/
Hey Eric..saw you on white rose government channel 18 on comcast, grear answers and comments with your colleagues. Have you gotten any lawn signs yet? I would love to put some up on my lawn in windsor township. Please advise on that request and best wishes to you and your family. Mr. Martin Goes to Washington, has a nice ring to it. Best wishes,
Perry Capurro
Apple Honda
03/12/2012
Hi Perry, thanks for the kind words, and the signs should be coming within a week.
Thanks Eric for the update and continued success on the campaign. When is voting day? I am ready to help any way I can.
Perry
Tuesday, April 24th. Thanks Perry.
Hi Eric, COuld you please tell me where you stand on the abortion issue?
Thanks!
I am Pro-Life. Roe v. Wade was an incorrect decision by the supreme court, and I will work to reverse it by legislation which defines life and privacy in such a way, at a federal level, so that the decision is undermined. I would also support an amendment to the Constitution which reversed Roe v. Wade. Ultimately, however, I believe that abortion is best left as an issue to be regulated by the people and the states. Just as murder is generally not made illegal at the federal level, but rather at the state level; so too abortion is a states’ rights issue and should be left in the hands of the states. This is the position of the U.S. Constitution and also my position. I believe life starts at conception.
What are your views on the outstanding wars, our relationship with Israel, and the Federal Reserve?
Our wars since World War II we should never have gotten in, and need to get out, because they are not Constitutionally declared. We handcuff Israel by giving them aid and then telling them what to do. I believe that most people in Israel would be much happier if the U.S. minded its own business, didn’t give it or its enemies aid, and let Israel be a sovereign nation, acting of its own accord. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional because it’s not authorized in the Constitution. For a double whammy, the Federal Reserve allows for the expansion of a fiat currency, when the Constitution calls for only Gold or Silver as a payment of debts at the state level. We must fully audit and then end the Fed.
Eric…when can you deliver the yard signs to my home please? 317 Larkin Drive, Red Lion. Please advise.
Today.
Congressman Platts is 19th district…you are running for 4th?
Yes. Because of the redistricting this year in the aftermath of the 2010 census, there are now 18 districts instead of 19. The new 4th district is essentially Todd Platt’s old 19th District. It still includes all of Adams and York counties, and includes part of Cumberland county but somewhat changes the lines, and adds most of Harrisburg city.
Good luck to you. I’m not in your district but wish you every success. I hope you can get some traction.
I really appreciate it.
What are your views regarding the legalization of marijuana for recreational use? Since you are a libertarian, do you support the notion that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they choose into their own bodies?
I think the Constitution puts these issues into the hands of the states. I think marijuana would be better dealt with like alcohol. People addicted to alcohol are alcoholics and are treated not as criminals, but as people who are sick or are a social detriment to society. In the same way addiction to marijuana should be treated as a social ill. Marijuana should be legal: the drug war is a failure and has caused more harm than good. Putting whatever you want into your body is reasonable, but according to the Constitution it’s up to the state to leave this alone or regulate this as they wish.
I was looking for someone who is not an eager hawk that wishes to bankrupt the nation, I’m happy I finally found one. One question, where do you stand on the issue of Auditing the FED?
I want to fully audit the Federal Reserve. And then the Fed needs to be abolished because it’s not authorized in the Constitution.
My wife and I agree with many of your issue concerns. However, we wanted to know exactly how you stand on the Pro-life issue. This is an issue that has many ways to be interpreted.
Thank you for the question. I am morally 100% pro-life from conception to death. However, as congressman I am pro-life in line with the U.S. Constitution. There is no Constitutional authority to force abortion to be legal or to make abortion legal at the Federal level. The Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional and a mistake. I would work to mitigate the Roe v. Wade decision. If I could I would repeal it, or pass an amendment to the Constitution to overturn it. This would put abortion in the hands of the states. I want abortion, and the regulation or illegalization of it fully in the hands of the states. I hope all states choose to make abortion illegal, but that’s not for me to decide. It is better for people to make domestic decisions such as this at a more local level than the national level, such as the state or local government level, because it brings the rulers closer to ruled. The founders knew this, and this is why the Constitution leaves abortion in the hands of the states according to the 10th amendment.
Mr Martin,
What is your position on church/state separation – do you believe that church & state should be strictly separated or that they should have some other relationship?
What is your position on secularism – do you believe that the government should be secular and neutral in religious matters or should instead reflect/endorse/promote particular religious beliefs/values?
Thank you
No, it shouldn’t be strictly separated. Many of the colonies and states had their own established religions. According to the Bill of Rights, Congress can’t establish a religion, but it doesn’t mean they can’t put the ten commandments in the White House or In God We Trust on a coin. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can’t pass laws related to religion, only that it can’t establish one or restrict the free exercise of religion. Also, churches should be allowed to be as political as they want. It’s a freedom of speech issue.
I happened to stumble upon your site via a Facebook ad. As an IT student, I’m interested to know what future plans you have for maintaining a healthy web presence. Your responses to comments on this site appear quite genuine as opposed to something prepared by a PR person. I’m usually uninterested in politics, but I have to admit, seeing you responding to individuals’ comments at 3am does an effective job of breaking down the stereotype of the distant/unreachable politician. Do you plan on utilizing social network and other web technologies to maintain this kind of intimate relationship with your supporters in the future?
I didn’t plan on it until recently, when someone asked if we would post within 24 hours why we voted a particular way on any given law, which I answered that I would be happy to do. However, I like to interact with people and listen to what they have to say, and ask and answer questions, so I suppose it would be only natural for me to keep up this interaction.
Since you have stated that you are against NDAA and the Patriot Act, what would you do to repeal both of these pieces of legislation?