Q. Do you believe the Constitution secures an individuals right to keep and bear arms?

A. I believe that we have God given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution secures our rights to protect these through the 2nd amendment. I have heard it said that the reason for the 2nd amendment is for when the 1st is ignored. A key point that is currently being ignored is “shall not be infringed.” Note: criminals are another subject.

Q. What is the purpose of government?

A. The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Government is to provide an environment where people can have life liberty and property and to resist the invasion of these by other individuals or groups. This includes providing an environment where people can provide for themselves. A risky statement is to say that government is to allow us to do what we can not do individually. When I think of this, I am not saying that it takes a community to live. I am saying that it may take a joint effort to defend ourselves from invading groups. According to the Bible, government is required for capital punishment which is needed at times. The US government is limited to powers given to it through Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.

Q. Where do our rights come from?

A. God, and are secured by the documents of men. One being the US Constitution.

Q. Do you believe the federal government has all powers except those prohibited by the Constitution, or no powers except those delegated by the Constitution?

A. The Federal Government has only the powers delegated to it by the US Constitution.

Q. If elected you will be required by oath to uphold the Constitution. What is your definition of an oath?

A. A promise to the creator of the Universe, where the "buck stops". This oath is a life or death oath. You keep it and all is well. You forsake it, and all bets are off. You are held to a level of accountability that God defines. See James Ch 3 and Deut Ch 28.

Q. Is your oath as important and as binding as the oath of every other elected official, including that of a Supreme Court Justice?

A. An oath is an oath. All are the same. If you break your oath at this level, you are a domestic enemy.

Q. Do you agree with the principle of “the rule of law” and how do you define that term?

A. My understanding of this is in the context of Democracy vs Republic concepts. Republic's rule via law. Our laws are based on the solid rock of scripture (10 commandments). There is right, and there is wrong. The law upholds what is right, and condemns what is wrong. A society based on law does not move if they abide by the principle of law. This requires the leaders to know the difference between right and wrong according to the scriptures. This is where we run into problems. Not because the laws are complicated, but because people simple don't know and understand them. People have forsaken the laws of God and have called wrong what is right, and what is right we have called wrong. I will tell you that I know what is right and wrong on the issues. For example: murder is wrong. Killing is right. Murder is apart from law, while killing is under the law. Abortion is murder. Corporal punishment is advocated in the scriptures and is therefore right. Homosexuality is wrong according to the scriptures (lev. 18 and Rom 1). Same sex marriage is wrong. Parents are to teach their kids (Dt 6). Lying and stealing is wrong. Adultery is wrong (Exod. 20) This is law. Democracy on the other hand is popular opinion at the time. This ebbs and flows and erodes. It's not based on anything, and therefore is chaos.

Q. Some say the Constitution is a “living document.” Do you agree?

A. The Constitution is not a living document. It is a document carved in rock that only changes according to the provisions allowed within it. Amending it will change it, but nothing else. The meaning of the constitutional wording and context is found in the Federalist Papers and other documents around the making of the document to bring understanding within the context and the times.

Q. What does the Constitution say regarding the length of terms for Federal Judges?

A. The Constitution says that Federal judges will serve as long as they are of "good behavior". So the question arises: What is "good behavior" and who decides this? I would say based on the context of Art 3 sec. 1 that the Congress has the power to decide what is good behavior based on the 1st sentence. Upon what does the Congress base what is right and wrong? Please refer to my answer above, The rule of law. If we go to any other source but the Bible for this answer we run into the problems described in Romans Cht 1, resulting in a debased mind. For lack of better terms and to put this into layman's language, if we go to any other source but the Bible, for the answer to what is right or wrong, we find ourselves not able to think straight or right. We end up acting in such ways that are repulsive to those who have a right mind. We do things like: allow open homosexuality in the military which will create a divided house, destined to fall.

Q. Do you believe the Constitution prohibits State governments from acknowledging God?

A. No. The founders attitudes are conveyed well by one who said that this Constitution is made for a moral and religious people, and wholly inadequate to any other. Paraphrasing John Adams.

Q. What is the purpose of the “enumeration” of citizens authorized in the Constitution that the US Census Bureau is currently performing?

A. The legitimate reason for the census is to simply count the number of people, so people can be fairly represented with the correct number of representatives according to the constitution. Any other questions are out of their scope of purpose.

Q.What are your thoughts on Second Amendment Rights?

A. I will not only swear, but keep my oath of office, to support the Constitution. There have been politicians promise during campaigns, then act against their promises. I want to declare up front in the strongest language possible that I will never vote against gun rights.

"I declare that I hereby waive in advance any right or prerogative I may have now or in the future to challenge a recall election if I should be elected to Congress and if I should ever cast a vote to diminish or impair the rights of American citizens or Montana residents to keep, bear, possess or use firearms."

"The central tenet of American political philosophy is that government is instituted not to create or bestow rights, but to protect pre-existing God given rights." The Second Amendment states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I interpret that to mean the upstanding citizen should not have to ask government for permission to bear arms. Asking permission nullifies the right. Citizen protection from his own government is what stimulated the adoption of the 2nd amendment to start with. It was put in place in case our government forgot about the 1st amendment.
In 2008 the Supreme Court said, in response to the Heller decision striking down gun control laws in Washington, D.C., that the Second Amendment did not grant a right, but “codified a pre-existing right.” The McDonald vs. City of Chicago case now pending in the Supreme Court is asking to have these “pre-existing rights” protected throughout the states.

Q. How are States Responding to an Over-encroachment of Federal Authority, that is clearly limited in the U.S. Constitution?

A. The Montana Firearm Freedom Act is an example of this response. This law prohibits federal law or federal regulations on any personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana. Montana was the first to initiate such an Act; Tennessee, Wyoming, S. Dakota and Utah have passed similar legislation. Other “Firearm Freedom” legislation is in varying stages in 28 states as of this writing. The whole point is that the Federal government is encroaching on State’s Rights and State’s Responsibilities.
Your Representative for the State of Montana needs to know the U.S. Constitution and feel convicted to represent you in line with it at any cost. I do not believe the Commerce, General welfare or “Elastic” clauses diminish or trump the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. It is absurd to think that the founders might have been so double minded to have placed "clauses" in the Constitution that remove the intent of Federal limited powers outlined in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
The latest health care bill passage will pour gas on the fire of the state sovereignty movement and nullification.

Q. Our Montana Representative voted for the Real ID Act of 2005. Why is that troubling to the people of Montana and the rest of the nation?

A. The Real ID Act directly imposes specific federal driver’s license standards on all states and territories in the United States. In doing so, 1) it decreases individual privacy, 2) makes citizens increasingly vulnerable to ID theft, 3) is a massive unfunded mandate on all states 4) and, it treats your driver’s license as a tracking device, allowing computers to record your whereabouts in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, it violates the Tenth Amendment by legislating in an area that is clearly the responsibility of the States. The Act gives unprecedented power to the Department of Homeland Security, under the direction of the Executive Branch through waivers, and therefore amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of powers. This Act violates the principle of separation of powers. REAL ID is on the slippery slope toward socialism. In 2007, the State of Montana unanimously passed legislation stating they would not comply with this Act. The Montana State House of Representatives vote 98-0 and the State Senate voted 50-0 against REAL ID. The incumbent voted for the REAL ID Act. This is a travesty!! REAL ID is against what you and I hold dear! Our founders and war dead veterans must have rolled in their graves.
Twenty other states have passed similar legislation, and over twenty more are in the process of legislating non-compliance with the Real ID Act.

Q. What do you think needs to be done to secure our Borders and bring about Immigration Reform?

A. I recommend the following steps to secure our borders and help secure the economic welfare and safety of our current and future citizens:
(1) Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left wide open.
(2) No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. Illegal means against the law! Why do we reward people for breaking our laws? Why do we communicate to potential citizens that they can get away with breaking the law?
(3) Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
(4) No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. The discussion around illegal aliens should not have to exist.
(5) End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know that their children will be citizens if born here, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain.
I realize that all people are important. I understand why they might want to come to America. However, if we don't control our borders, there will be no reason for them to want to come. Our nation will be no different than theirs.