Auditing the Federal Reserve is common call these days from both the left and the right. Back in 2010, in Ann Arbor, I worked the Art Fair for the LP. We shared the tent with the Ron Paul initiative for an audit and those people got way more signatures on their petitions. Earlier this week, at a meeting of Texans for Accountable Government, a campaign worker for a Larouche Democrat addressed the meeting. She lost them when she praised Franklin D. Roosevelt, but they agreed with her call to audit the Federal Reserve. Left and right are both unhappy with the Federal Reserve.

I suggest also that your text spell out Federal Reserve System (its proper name) and specify also Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve Board, as needed. See www.federalreserve.gov and note that it is in the Dot Gov domain. You would have to make a special case for calling it a "private" bank. Calling it "the Fed" is not clear: do you mean the federal government? We know what you mean. Not everyone will.

This deserves professional proofreading. Congressional and Constitutional should be capitalized as much for grammar as for clarity.

You should specify what the 17th Amendment is. My first reactions were that you wanted to make alcohol illegal again or take the vote away from women.

Defining the problem of Marbury v. Madison is a challenge in "25 words or less" but it can be done. Most people - even those who consider themselves informed - will not know what you mean by the reference.

Your campaign against the Commerce Clause is highly important to anyone who shops online. You must be clear that the Founders intended to make online shopping unregulated by the states.

Your Point 3) glosses over the fact that these "alphabet agencies" are fully Constitutional. Congress created them. Congress funds them. More deeply, it is a fact that democracy depends on bureaucracy. See Max Weber: each piece of paper must move from desk to desk irrespective of class or clan. If you want to decrease their authority, you must "strike at the roots" and insist that government must only do those things that are minimally required for an ordered society. That is not an easy discussion.

My experience with conservatives and Republicans is that the activists come to processes such as this with an agenda voiced in other language, entirely. Translating across those and yours is a challenge.

If your goal is to win an election, then it might be best just to articulate the broadest possible call for an "originalist" Constitutional intention and leave the rest undiscussed and undefined.

I would add questions about candidates' positions on NSA snooping, undeclared wars, income tax repeal, not raising national debt limit, patriot act repeal, Obamacare repeal.

Delete questions regarding 17th Amendment and Marbury; our positions would get no traction with voters at this point in time.

See also F.A.Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" We have arrived.

Good questions. I'd probably put the Commerce Clause as question #1, since it has been misused to expand government power the most.

In the discussion on alphabet soup agencies, I would point out that many of their activities violate the Tenth Amendment (issues under state jurisdiction) and is a big contributor to out-of-control government spending. What will the congressman do to reduce staffing at all alphabet soup agencies, reduce spending, and in some cases eliminate entire agencies (Dept. of Education, NEA, Homeland Security, Agriculture, NSA, etc...) that in most cases operate in areas of state jurisdiction (10th Amendment).

The problem I see is that even if you succeed in getting an honest politician with good values elected, it is ultimately a futile exercise. As a beginning politician, the person you support is not going to have much power or sway over the others or the process. To get any kind of influence, s/he will have to make deals with the other politicians: I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine. If s/he is skilled and wise, s/he may succeed in getting a net benefit of freedom for the constituents through this game instead of a net loss, but at the cost of sacrificing on quite a few issues. Then, even if s/he lasts a few terms like this, s/he will eventually be defeated and drummed out of office by a coalition of both parties unless s/he commits to the system by accepting bribes/contributions and serving the powerful special interests.

My family has been involved in politics in the past, and this is what I've seen. The system is entrenched and corrupt, and I don't think there's any way of fixing it in either the long or short term, other than doing away with government altogether.

#3. The alphabet soup agencies should be examined for constitutionality with the 10th amendment as the measuring stick. For too long congress has abdicated it's power to make laws by allowing these agencies to govern with "rules" which are crafted within the agencies, not in the house and senate. If these agencies are not constitutional on the face of it, they should be taken apart in deference to the separate states or to the people. An example of this would be Department of Education.

If they are constitutional, the agency should be accountable to the congress, not left to run their own show. It could be argued whether IRS is constitutional. While the Constitution does not specifically provide for IRS, I am of the opinion the government is afforded the responsibility of collecting taxes. In a recent example IRS made the ruling that businesses could not terminated medical coverage and give salary increases to employees, allowing them to find their own coverage. This is an example of a government agency effectively writing law. This should not be permitted. Congress should make law, and face their constituents when they overstep. When IRS makes a rule, or EPA, OSHA, FDA,etc; where do the people file their grievance?

Alphabet agencies make administrative law (rules) under the enabling legislation that authorizes them. I would modify the enabling legislation to require approval by majority vote in both chambers of the Congress, with power of amendment of the rules by the Congress, thereby giving the people's and the states' representatives legislative power over the rules and regulations adopted by the alphabet agencies. I agree that you should drop 2 and 4 at this time.

Long ago I took part in developing a Certified Constitutional Candidate (C3) program in New Jersey.

I developed a twelve-point questionnaire that you might find useful. Here is the link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/question...

At this link you will find other links to every other article I wrote about C3. This includes how I would answer those questions, if I were running for office.

http://www.examiner.com/article/c3-serie...

Here are the questions:

Why are you running for Congress/your County Freeholder's Board?

What specific things is the federal/State government empowered to provide?

Does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean an individual right? If not, why not? And if so, does this permit any restrictions of any kind on the lawful ownership of any sort of weapon?

Do you accept or reject the proposition that an armed citizen militia, i.e. all citizens, who are not law-enforcement officers or members of any armed service, who happen to own weapons, is the last line of civil defense, with which the government ought not interfere?

As a corollary to the above, will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support measures to allow any common transport carrier or station to allow its officers to become part of that citizen's militia by carrying arms on the job?

If a law cannot be enforced short of compromising the protections of the writ of habeas corpus, the right to security of the person against unreasonable search and seizure, and the like, will you recommend its repeal?

For what purpose shall any government exercise "eminent domain"?

Shall any government have the power to dispossess a lawful resident of his property, for the purpose of turning said property over to another person for any purpose?

Shall any government have the power to restrict anyone's use of his property, without compensating the owner for the diminution in value that said restriction might incur?

Where does the Constitution authorize any of the below, and if no such provision be found, will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support measures to repeal any unauthorized laws, privatize or phase out any unauthorized functions, etc.?
Compulsion to purchase any particular good or service, including without limitation the service commonly known as "health insurance."
Denial or restriction of the right of any individual to purchase, consume or transport any particular comestible or pharmaceutical, including without limitation raw milk, herbal preparations, or recreational drugs.
The transfer of wealth from one person to another, from one generation to another, or the like.
Funding or running any scientific or other expeditions, crewed or uncrewed, into outer space.
Exclusive federal authority over common carriers and stations of transport, including without limitation airports, railroad stations, bus terminals, airliners, trains, buses, and the like, for purposes of guaranteeing security against crime commandeering, and the like.

Will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support the proposal of any of these suggested Amendments to the Constitution?
To repeal the XVIth Amendment (the one authorizing a tax on incomes that is not apportioned among the several States).
To guarantee to any State the right to recall its Congressional delegation, or any member thereof, and to send a substitute member to serve out any unexpired term, as formerly and explicitly provided in the Articles of Confederation.
To limit the aggregate terms of service of Members of Congress.
To declare that any willful distortion of the Constitution shall constitute "bad behavior" on the part of a judge or Justice and thus constitute grounds for removal from the bench on impeachment therefor and conviction thereof.

Shall the Congress define acts of war committed by individuals or non-government organizations, and formally declare war against any individuals or groups demonstrated to be so acting?

1) I wonder how much an audit of the Fed would do. I would support one but They each have a staff of pretty well educated (not necessarily correct) economists and can show the books to look however they want. That's my guess, and I've only had 1 glass of wine with a Fed economist.
2) wipe out the 16th and the 17th please.

3) I dunno, shut them all down but the elected one will not

4) congress does have the power to overrule a scotus decision, see aforementioned 16th amendment.

Ok I only answered 1,2 and 4, but I wish you much success in getting a worthy one elected.

I have not seen it referenced here in the discussion so far, but Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments - Restoring the American Republic" provides a logical and excellent intellectual foundation for forming some excellent questions to those whose wish to represent us.

Great ideas, Robbie; and I don't have the time to read all the thoughtful commentaries offered by our intellectual associates.

What's worse, I'm utterly skeptical of humanity these days, after they elected "The One" for the second time. Tending toward anarcho-syndicalism in my frustration, I don't know if the great unwashed can even be woken from their lethargy-lotus-eating (TV, Justin Timberlake and the like, "Dancing With The Stars," sports, and the plethora of other "light displays" with which they are bombarded... Anyway, let me not wax too Nietzschian, and offer some hopefully useful ideas.

A flat tax. This eliminates the IRS; one of the most noxious of bureau-octopi.

Like all your ideas, by the way!

Abolish ATF, FBI, CIA, and a host of other federalist octopi whose jobs should be done locally.

Affirm Posse Comitatus (spelling?).

Repeal all federal drug laws. I don't use drugs, but they're used this BS "war on drugs" flim-flam to feed the federal hyper-bureau-octopus, bloat cop rolls, and imprison tens of thousands for merely exercising their right to use their own bodies as they choose.

Anti-Trust laws? A thought... the govt. is the biggest abuser of all; they've got a lot of nerve worrying about errant capitalists!

A constitutional amendment to require those bastards in Congress to abide by any laws they pass (such as the Affordable Care Act).

Term limits. Eliminate the Edward M. Kennedys and others of his ilk, (D) or (R).

The Supreme Court? Complex issue. They are supposed to interpret laws that are passed; not issue diktats. Bakke vs. Univ. of California (?)(1977?) only shows just what hypocrites and double-speakers they are. In that decision they basically said "Racism is OK, but racism is not OK." Now THAT'S "leadership!" How to fix? Hmmm... guess I'd better not say! Not sure how to resolve this conundrum. A new amendment to the Constitution, something to the effect that if 75% of the people vote for something, they can't override it? Just an idea...

Require property ownership for voters. I'm sure that will be popular!

Require a president to be impeached if he knowingly circumvents established law (viz; immigration policies now.)

Require the Imperium Americanum to withdraw from all foreign countries, unless in time of war and by invitation, as approved by congress.

I know I'm dreaming... the bureaucratic monster or its heroes first started circumventing established law in 1861 - or maybe even under Washington during the Whiskey rebellion!

Repudiate all alliances, NATO, the UN... everything the "Military Industrial Complex" uses to "justify" its milking of the taxpayer's dollars with "the latest military necessity."

Defund "art" stuff, such as NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, etc.

Ah, I know I'm dreaming, and wandering all over the canvas!

Maybe some of this might be of use! Turn the "White House" into a museum and require the chief executive to live like an ordinary citizen; not a king! All this neo-Prussian "royalty stuff" is unbefitting a republic!

All right; I'll shut up now!

Hope some of this is of use. You have great ideas, but - again, I don't think there are enough awake people to even notice!

Good luck just the same!

All good questions, I would not suggest any changes to the questions.
However, to get a clear response from all candidates it might be worth cutting out the rest of the message. Cut it down to the simple list of questions. The sentence "With the VA mess..." and the discussion points, present your own view. Candidates running for election are people pleasers, they can modify their answers to fit what they think you want to hear. After you get their reply, maybe then give them your opinion in rebuttal/support.

Remember the objective is for you to choose how to vote. Getting your opinion across to them is more important after the election, communicating with whoever has won.

I would suggest a question asking if the candidates support legislation protection individual property right, in light of the UN Agenda 21. If property rights go, so goes the country as we know it.

As a citizen of the 6th district I share your indecision. I voted for Webb in the primary. I like your questions and would like to be there when you ask them if you did it in person. If I could ask one it would be ''Not including Jesus, who is your favorite philosopher?'
Please keep us posted?

"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."

~Alexander Hamilton - Federalist No. 78~

It is not true that the Founders did not envision judicial review. Certainly some of the Founders were stridently against it, most notably Thomas Jefferson, but as can seen in Federalist No. 78, the concept was not at all foreign to the Founders. It is also important to note that the reason Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote pamphlets that now comprise the Federalist Papers, was to sell the Constitution for the United States of America, and its counterpart, The Anti-Federalist Papers shows how the Founders were not all in total agreement on all matters of the Constitution.

As an implied power, it is also important to note that Washington urged Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton did this by relying on the concept of implied powers, the first to do so. From this, Chief Justice John Marshall used Hamilton's reasoning in McCullough v. Maryland and it was this very same Supreme Court Chief Justice (cousin and political rival to Jefferson) who, in Marbury v. Madison, found implied powers from Article III and the Supremacy Clause from Article VI.

Recognizing the courts inherent duty to determine the applicable legislation in any case, and that the Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution the "Supreme Law of the Land", any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is void. This is the reasoning behind judicial review.

Judicial review also serves as a stark reminder that legislation is no more law than the map is the territory or the word the thing defined. At best, legislatures can accurately describe law, at worst they can enact flat out unlawful legislation.

It is naive to think that bad legislation can be handled through the electoral process, and it necessarily places more emphasis on democratic principles than it does to recognize the republic undeniably established by the Constitution.

With judicial review the courts still remain the weakest branch of government. The most famous evidence of this lies with the infamous response of Andrew Jackson to Worcester v Georgia. The most quoted is more than likely apocryphal, but is none the less quoted as "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." What Jackson most certainly did say, in a letter to John Coffee: "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate".

The courts have no way of enforcing their decisions, but as the final court of appeals, the Supreme Court has long instructed the people on what to do in defending and protecting their rights.

Following Citizens United - a damn fine ruling that demonstrates the SCOTUS commitment to the Supreme Law of the Land - that same court heard Bond v. United States (2011). Bond was an odious woman who used toxic materials to exact revenge upon her ex boyfriend and new girlfriend. She went to prison for it, but after her release the ever so zealous EPA went after her as well, and she fought this. It was a 10th Amendment case, but the 9th was certainly recognized, and the Court held that individuals have the right to challenge bogus legislation. This is an extremely important ruling and victory for the individual facing the machinations of the state or federal government, but has recieved so little attention because of all the ridiculous hoopla over Citizens United.

Judicial review is a necessary element of ordered liberty.

I am more on board with the push for a 28th amendment- term limits and the idea that laws apply equally to citizens and their reps ACROSS THE BOARD! I would add that the salaries of all State and Federal employees (including POTUS all the way down to floor sweepers) be reduced to the average annual income of the American worker AND all pay increases limited to cost of living with a maximum of an additional 3% based on performance. Also, any alphabetical agency that crosses-over jurisdiction with another agency should be eliminated, and especially that any federal agency that conflicts with a similar State or Local agency be eliminated (which is already a provision of the Constitution). Reigning-in the Federal govt as a whole should be job 1.

While I agree with the gist of the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the history of that one bears scrutiny. My son had to do a history on the man responsible, and it was interesting to note that it was because of the actions of a Montana Senator who was very literally buying his appointment to the Senate each term by bribing the State Representatives that this Amendment was passed.

I believe that with the proper transparency, this kind of thing could be mitigated, as I do agree that the popular vote should be restricted to the Congressional Representatives for the sole purpose in maintaining States' rights.

Here are a few of the questions I would ask:

#1 Would you support a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced Federal Budget?

#2 Would you support an audit of the Federal Reserve?

#3 Would you support a restriction on the types of Executive Orders that can be issued by the President to expressly invalidate any rule-making or pseudo-legislative action reserved to Congress?

#4 Would you support legislation that would immediately terminate the employment of and incarcerate anyone employed by the Federal Government who is found to be suppressing voter rights or legal acts of speech - to include impeachment of elected representatives or appointed officials?

#5 Would you support a bill that would make it an impeachable offense to withhold testimony or evidence from a Congressional inquiry for longer than 90 days?

I think your questions are a bit esoteric. I think that the comments given below are good, and that Temlakos' questions are likely to resonate with an audience more than 2 and 4 above. I agree with the commenters who said that you need to add an introduction that refers to reclaiming the original intent of the Constitution, and that your questions 1 and 3 re the Federal Reserve and 'alphabet soup' need to be expanded. I would tend to focus on the NSA, which is what is in people's minds right now.

The question, "If you were charged with supporting a governmental directive that you regarded as unconstitutional, would you comply?" also comes to mind. In a way, the audacity to ask these questions publicly is the important point - your ability to influence the veracity of the answers or the quality of the elected candidate is minimal...but your ability to ask such questions openly (and perhaps publish the responses) may help catalyze opinion in other people.

Jan

Any one can make a federal reserve audit report. Just take white piece of paper that it totally blank. Be sure it is of legal size. Now starting at the top of the paper draw a horizontal line with a thick black marker. The marker should be as thick as a standard highlighter but not highlight anything. Now continue drawing horizontal lines until you reach the bottom of the page. Be sure not to miss any area of the paper.

These are all valid questions. But, and here's the but -- you are entrenched in the constitutional process and expect the respondents to respect this process. The reality of today's America clearly shows that the constitutional process is given lip service at best, and ignored most of the time. The Left is in fact waging a war on the Constitution and on the American form of government. The RINOs have joined the Radicals as the bandwagon rolls toward Power, which is the ultimate goal for them. In your questions, what is to prevent a candidate from giving an answer his audience wants to hear and then doing what the power establishment does? Remember, lying, according to the Left’s godfather, Alinsky, is a virtue. Surely, the RINOs or anyone else is not exempt from this virtue. My recommendation for weeding out RINO power seekers – have a prospective candidate sign a contract where he pledges to take certain enumerated actions and vote in a certain way, backed by specific financial penalties from his personal coffers upon failure to live up to the contract. Real believers in the Free Market will not have a problem with such an approach, while the RINOs will drown in rhetoric justifying their opposition to it. The question is, will the voters insist on this, or would they rather have more Obama-phones?

Remember: Tom Petri is one of the biggest proponents of Agenda 21 and basically wanted to give the Fox River Valley to Herb Kohl as a "retirement gift"! Please add getting rid of the UN agenda to your list.

how about asking what their qualifications are to be a representative first. if they can actually give a sound reason then ask how they would as your representative get things that interest you done. a fellow I know is now running for office, because his business isn't doing that well and as I understand it the political job pays 36,000.00 a year. maybe that is his real reason for running. if he is successful and wins I am quite sure he will only occupy space like the rest of them.