Here is a group of highlights from various debate(s), forum(s), and promotion(s) on a few different topics:
Economy: Generally speaking, the Federal Government should not be involved in the economy. The Constitution does allow Federal involvement with regard to international trade and interstate trade. I will allow forms of regulation related to this such as trade treaties, tariffs, and laws about borders between states and other nations. I will vote “no” to any laws not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. I will also support an Audit of the Federal Reserve and the eventual dissolution of it.
Abortion: I believe life starts at conception. The federal government needs to get out of the role of mandating that abortion be legal in the States. As Congressman, I will work to protect life by getting the federal government out of abortion matters entirely. Ideally the individual states will then have the power to illegalize or regulate abortion as they see fit.
Right to Bear Arms: The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Based on history and my experience, I believe this Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government and solely the Federal Government. Some may argue that guns should not be allowed in schools or courthouses, but let us leave this up to the state to decide which restrictions to place on the bearing of arms. Gun Control is a State’s Rights issue. As Congressman, I will work to take the Federal Government out of Gun Control and keep it out.
Taxes: One of the ways I live my life, and one of the concepts I firmly believe in, is “simpler is better”. Our personal income tax code is too complex, convoluted, and serves too many special interests. Ideally, the income tax will be abolished. In the short term, I will work to cut the budget so that the income tax burden can be cut as much as possible.
Education: This is a Tenth Amendment issue. The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Federal Government is delegated no power regarding education in the U.S. Constitution. And so, the Federal Government should have no say or laws regarding education. As Congressman, I will work to keep education in the hands of the individual, the family, the community, the state, and out of the hands of the Federal Government. ”No Child Left Behind” was and is a disaster and I will work to repeal this law and others which infringe on the individual and state liberties in education.
Health Care: This is another Tenth Amendment issue. Since health care is not delegated to the United States Federal Government the power is reserved to the people or to the states.
Citizens are ultimately responsible for their health care, and they may empower the state to regulate that health care. However, the Federal government should have no part in the well-being of the individual. As Congressman, I will work to repeal Obamacare and will work to bring the federal government out of health care entirely.
National Defense: Thomas Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” I believe in this, and I believe that the United States’ armies are spread too thin in many countries across the world. We need to bring our troops home, and they can then do their job of defending Our Borders, Our People, and Our Nation.
Immigration: I want our country to work towards securing our borders. It is not fair for illegal immigrants to get the benefits of living in this nation, when there are legitimate immigrants-in-waiting on lists who do not get those benefits, but are trying to go the legal route. Even more importantly, it is not fair to citizens of the United States when they are paying for services to illegal immigrants. I will support laws which expand legal immigration in areas which I believe will help the economy but not hurt citizens who are already here. For example, if there are not enough information technology workers in our country, and there are many open positions for people in this field, I would support an expansion of legal immigration for people from other countries who have a specialized education in that area. Ultimately, I will put the interests of our people and economy first when it comes to immigration.
Faith: I am a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I have accepted God’s grace through Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins, and I believe that God is the supreme power in this world and beyond.
I have respect for atheists, agnostics, and people of all faiths. I believe my faith, prayer, and reliance on God helps me to live with integrity, and the foundation of a higher moral authority helps me to see more clearly the problems of our time.
***Feel free to read about the campaign’s latest events, read more about Eric, see the calendar, volunteer for the campaign, or donate to the campaign.
Site Paid for by Eric Martin.
Congratulations Eric, it’s so good to see young people giving back to society. Just wondered what your views would be on same sex marriage. Would this be a state issue, etc.?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks so much for the question. It is a state issue. There is no delegated power in the Constitution for Congress or the Federal Government to regulate or control marriage.
So you agree with the Obama administration that we should repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
Thanks for the question, Dan. It’s a very complex issue. In 1996, when it passed both houses overwhelmingly, they should have either worked to pass it as an amendment to the Constitution, or they should have left it up to the states and the courts to decide. While I don’t like activist judges who essentially create law, this concept of “marriage” is very hard to interpret in light of its current changing meaning when compared to its historical meaning as between a man and a woman. The “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution definitely presents some sticky situations. I know that Congress was trying to define marriage federally in the Defense of Marriage Act, and that portion of the law is legitimate. But the whole of the Defense of Marriage Act is not legitimate.
The main portion of the Act seems to be as follows:
“Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Section 3 is legitimate, because it is defining marriage in a Federal context. That is legal and doesn’t go against the Constitution. Section 2 does go against the Constitution. To essentially say that no state can be required to recognize gay marriage is to either go against or at least attempt to define the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution. While this type of legislation may have been historically used to “define” the Constitution, it is not correct or necessary. The Federal Government should have passed Section 3 and not Section 2 of this legislation. If the Federal government still felt section 2 was necessary, they should pass a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.
And in answer to your question, ultimately Section 2 of this Act should be repealed and deserves to be repealed because it attempts to define a particular outcropping of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution.
***I previously said “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution instead of the proper clause, which is the “Full Faith and Credit” that I have now inserted into the post. I was mistaken. The second part of the clause, “And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” leads me to believe that “The Defense of Marriage Act” be Constitutional, but because it tends to nullify the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the prior sentence, I would still rather have an Amendment than an Act for the purpose of defining marriage at a state level.
Yes or no, buddy.
Yes or No to what?
Your words give me hope! Power to The People!
Thanks Randi. Spread the word. That’s why I want to be in Congress. I want the power to be in the hands of the people.
Some people have wondered why I’ve jumped into politics at such a high level. My answer is that if I want to make a difference I need to jump in to a position at the national level. The states are not the problem, the federal government is. The Federal Government is handcuffing 50 engines of innovation by regulating them and giving them funded and unfunded programs and mandates. We need the Federal Government out of our lives, out of our churches, out of our communities, out of our local governments, and out of our states governments. That’s what the concept of our Government, being a Federal form of government, is all about.
Eric,
How would you plan to make up the lost revenue from getting rid of income tax?
Thanks so much for the question, Matt. Ideally, the lost revenue from getting rid of the Income Tax will never be made up. Rather, the Federal Government will decrease its expenditures by the same amount as the lost revenue. This way revenue will not have to be raised anywhere else.
I do not propose that we get rid of the income tax right away. What has been proposed is to bring the troops home as soon as possible, and then make some of our entitlement programs, such as Social Security, opt-out programs. Offensive war spending is a huge part of the Federal Budget. When we get rid of the offensive spending and focus on the defensive spending, the Federal government will have much less expenditures. Beyond this, making Social Security opt-out will allow young people to stop paying in to something that is better off left to private citizens, private institutions, and if it must come to it, the State, but not the Federal, Government. If Income tax can be zero or near zero through these measures, that would be ideal.
I believe in a balanced budget where revenues meet or exceed expenditures, and I hope that we can get rid of our debt. In my opinion, the situation where debt can be useful, if absolutely necessary, is in the defense of our country in response to an attack whether from an internal or external source.
With your comment on Education do you also believe that the federal government should not give grants and loans for college. There is a lot of federal money tied up there. If you believe Education is a state only thing then would you want to get rid of FASFA and all the federally titled things for college? Also if you are in favor of getting rid of this stuff how would you purpose students start paying for school. I know my college was paid for by Federal Pell Grant and Federal Loans, some private but heavily federally funded.
Yes, I want to get rid of Federal involvement in higher education as well. It’s unconstitutional, just as the whole Department of Education is unconstitutional. I believe the beginnings of FAFSA were from the Higher Education Act of 1965. Before this people could afford college. The reason they could afford it was two-fold. One reason was that the private sector took care of students by making loans available, and private charities offered scholarships as they do now. The other reason it was affordable is because FAFSA wasn’t around. FAFSA raises the real price of education by lowering the cost for the student. So while you pay less for education, the people who want education but don’t qualify for aid pay more for it because of the effects of supply and demand. There’s more demand for education because the cost to the individual is less, but the greater demand creates a greater price for all. The Department of Education was established in 1979, and never should have been, in my opinion.
But wouldn’t it be a Catch 22. If you get rid of FASFA the universities will still have high tuition which means NO ONE could afford it except for the rich. Wouldn’t the first thing that would need to be done is get colleges to lower tuition to a reasonable level and then get rid of FASFA.
It creates a false incentive for some people to go to school…. When theyd be better served by working
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
So because someone can’t afford college even though they might have the skills and intelligence to be extremely successful they should never get the chance at college?
I can’t understand why more people aren’t raising the idea of working out of high school, earning and saving money, and then making a wiser decision about whether or not to pursue higher education when you’re older. I’m doing much better as an adult student than I did as a kid out of high school, and I was able to use college to further my goals – but first I needed to actually live life a little to realize what those goals were. Too many kids think they MUST go to college, but end up undeclared, or with a diploma they don’t know how to use. The federal gov. handing out loans makes it too easy to extend their childhoods and dependency. If you really think college is the right decision, and you don’t have the money, there’s always private loans. I see no reason for the federal gov’t to be involved at all. The harder you have to work for something, the more you appreciate it and are willing to go the distance. Americans need to learn how to be responsible for themselves. Giving hand-outs to immature high school students only furthers this nation’s problem for another generation, teaching them to whine to the gov’t for assistance.
I agree with you for the most part. Not only is there no reason for the federal government to be involved, but their involvement goes against the U.S. Constitution because there is no authorization for anything related to education in the Constitution.
Unfortunately I did not appreciate college enough when I went, and perhaps should have waited longer until going. I went one semester and then worked for about 9 months before going back. Those nine months of working in the real world gave me some good perspective.
“I believe life starts at conception. The federal government needs to get out of the role of mandating that abortion be legal in the States. As Congressman, I will work to protect life by getting the federal government out of abortion matters entirely.”
Actually I have an issue with you based on your first issue because it seems a little backwards. You state you want to limit government. But your first issue of abortion talks about getting the government out of legalizing abortion. Which in turns puts a ban of abortion thus creating MORE government involvement in personal lives. How about instead of telling people what you think about abortion you let them decide.
Thanks for the comment. No, I am not planning on banning abortion at the Federal Level. If the will of the people is overwhelmingly against abortion, I will support an amendment to ban abortion. But I don’t plan on doing that for two reasons: I don’t think the will of the people will be there any time soon. The second reason is that if the will of the people is there, the states will probably have already banned it themselves, unless Roe v. Wade is still getting in the way.
In other words, abortion is a States’ Rights issue. I want the Federal Government out of abortion entirely so that states can make it illegal or regulate it as they see fit. Just as I wouldn’t expect the Federal Government to declare murder illegal within a state’s borders, I wouldn’t expect the Federal Government to declare abortion illegal or legal.
It was so good to hear that you are making this jump to represent the hearts and voices of the people. Your parents are very proud. With the Lord in your heart, you will be strong against the harsh words and antagonists that will crawl out from every nook and cranny. Stand strong and fight the lobbyists and big business for us that want to eliminate what was once a governemnt for the people. I like these ideals as I hear Ron Paul speak them and now we have a voice locally. Thank you and good luck!
Thank you for the encouraging words, Scott.
“Right to Bear Arms: I believe this Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government and solely the Federal Government… but let us leave this up to the state to decide which restrictions to place on the bearing of arms. Gun Control is a State’s Rights issue. As Congressman, I will work to take the Federal Government out of Gun Control and keep it out.”
Nice try. Only problem is States do not have rights. States have powers. Additionally, The SCOTUS ruled in the McDonald decision that the 2nd AOA was incorporated on the states through the due process clause and the 14th AOA. The discussion now turns to determining reasonable restrictions on firearms. Your position seems to be out of touch with current reality and further suggests that if the States decide to ban all firearm ownership, that would be just fine with you. Getting the feds out of the gun control business would be wonderful, but please do not advocate for allowing the States unlimited power to regulate firearms.
Thank you for your clarification on the topic. I didn’t realize the Supreme Court incorporated this in 2010. But I also think it’s important to realize that perhaps the greatest thing preserving individuals’ right to bear arms, other than the people themselves demanding it, are the state constitutions. 39 (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html) of the 50 states secure the right to bear arms within their constitutions. And I also think it’s important to note that just because the Supreme Court incorporates something doesn’t mean it’s good or Constitutional. When the SCOTUS said that privacy must be incorporated and so abortion must be legal in the states was incorrect.
I usually do not drop a leave a response, but after reading through a few of the comments on %NAME%. I do have a few questions for you if you do not mind. Is it just me or does it look like a few of these remarks come across like they are coming from brain dead people?
And, if you are posting on additional online social sites, I would like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Would you make a list of every one of all your social networking pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
I have a Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Eric-Martin/334281929947836 And a YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EricMartinUSCongress?feature=watch I have more but might post them later.
I really like your views on leaving most issues up to the states. The federal government has abrogated many of the rights, powers, and responsibilities of the states.
Now I do have a question for you. Jim DeMint recently said that he believed the debate within the Republican Party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians (and he offered working definitions of the two), rather than conservatives and moderates. How do you feel about this argument and what role do you believe libertarians should play in the future of the Republican Party?
I think it’s a great argument. I wish that there was no debate, and that all Republicans were libertarians. I feel that the roots of the Republican party were much more Libertarian than they are now, and we need to get back to that.