Obama's Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act

Apparently part of Barack Obama's platform on family includes the following:

Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers in their lives has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. As president, Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.

This is not an endorsement but is certainly interesting. I'm always concerned with the "crack down" language in reference to purported support dodgers without corresponding language about parental rights, accountability, etc...

A Political Candidate Who Actually Has a Family Rights Platform?

Michael Badnarik ran for President in 2004 as a Libertarian. I highlighted his presidential campaign on this blog as then he had a very similar plank to his platform.

He is now running for Congress in Texas - with family as his first platform plank. Link to his site here and directly to his position on family here.

I am reprinting excerpts from his position on American families below:

Through a simple function of unintended consequences an entire intergovernmental industry has grown up around servicing the remnants of broken families. Tens of thousands of state and county employees and contractors have a vested interest in divorce, custody battles, child-support abuse, and pain.

There has been no counterbalancing force, other than the private-sector activism of victimized non-custodial parents themselves (NCPs), and their advocates. Of course, power goes to the money. With billions of federal aid to support and defend unfair, divisive and destructive policies and biased agencies and courts, there is no rational end in sight. A lot of bureaucrats and otherwise-unnecessary practitioners depend on the continuation of that money, It's going to take some serious money and political power to overcome that.

Millions of parents have been estranged from their children and have lost their homes, families and purposes in life because of what amounts to a federal bounty on broken homes. In recent history, as much as 60% of the costs of administering state agencies that have no incentive to help salvage marriages or keep families together and communicating, has come from the federal government.

Michael Badnarik will work to eliminate all federal welfare to state agencies whose paid function, intentionally or not, is to facilitate the breakup of marriages and act as part of the wedge between parents and their children. And he will work to prohibit any state or county agency who receives any federal funding at all from taking any role in servicing the interests of either parent over the interests of the other.

Divorce must cease being the probable outcome of turning to society for help, and child support must stop serving as the keys to debtors' prison and second-class citizenship.

For first time, Pa. voters oust a Supreme Court justice

NEPA News

While the decision to oust this judge appears to hinge on salary issues - make no mistake that this is an important example of how the judicial branch (not to mention the legislative) can be taken back through collective action.

Excerpts:

In an unprecedented vote, Pennsylvanians denied a Supreme Court justice a second term Tuesday as public anger at state lawmakers over a pay-raise law spread to the state's highest court. A second justice won another term only narrowly.

Justice Russell M. Nigro received only 49 percent of vote _ making him the first statewide judge to be turned out of office in a yes-or-no retention election in the 36 years such elections have been held.

Justice Sandra Schultz Newman won a second term with 54 percent of the vote, a close margin for a retention election, the partial returns showed.

In the last judicial election in 2001, the three jurists on the ballot all were retained by margins of 3-1.

"It's a clear signal that Pennsylvanians have awoke from their long slumber," said Russ Diamond, chairman of PACleanSweep, a political action committee that aims to challenge every incumbent legislator in next year's elections. "I think that the voters fully understand what's going on here."

New Baskerville Articles

The Fathers’ War
They serve their country and lose their children.
By Stephen Baskerville

Excerpts:

While our country focuses on the war abroad, many of our soldiers fight personal battles here at home—or more accurately, can’t fight. They are losing their families and getting little help from an administration that claims to “support the troops” while doing nothing to protect the parental rights of the fathers it sent into combat.

Muffled by feminist orthodoxy, the Army and media are not disclosing the facts behind these divorces or publicizing the threat they pose to preparedness. The important points are these: the divorces are almost all initiated by wives, the servicemen usually lose their children—which for many is their main incentive for serving their country—and finally, they often become liable to criminal prosecution for child support that is impossible for them to pay.

Even more astounding, vicariously divorced servicemen can be criminally prosecuted for child-support arrearages that are almost impossible not to accrue while they are on duty. Reservists are hit particularly hard because their child-support burdens are based on their civilian pay and do not decrease when their income decreases. Because reservists are often mobilized with little notice, few get modifications before they leave, and modifications are almost never granted anyway. They cannot get relief when they return because federal law prohibits retroactive reductions for any reason. Once arrearages reach $5,000, the soldier becomes a felon and subject to imprisonment.

Spouses have other financial incentives to divorce military personnel. A serviceman must complete 20 years of active service to qualify for retirement pay. A woman married to the man for one day may claim a portion of the pension for life, without regard to fault or need, simply by filing for divorce. As David Usher points out in Men’s News Daily, there is no limit on how many times a woman can do this. (Men have done it too.)

The flight of men from the military strikingly parallels the flight of men from marriage, with its attendant drop in birth rates, that has come to preoccupy policymakers up to the level of president. Men are staying away from both institutions for the same reasons: for many they have become a ticket to jail.

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
By Professor Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D

Excerpts:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), currently up for renewal, is possibly the most totalitarian measure ever passed by the Congress. Every jurisdiction has criminal statutes punishing violent assault. So why do we need a law punishing assaults specifically "against women"? Why must it be a federal law, for which no constitutional authority exists? And why is $4 billion in taxpayers’ money required to outlaw something that is already against the law? The answer, as usual, is power – power for those who promise to protect us against yet another new danger.

It is politically hazardous for politicians to question any measure marketed for women and children. But no evidence indicates any problem of violence specifically against women. A virtually unanimous body of research has demonstrated that domestic violence is perpetrated by both sexes in roughly equal measures. So what is the real agenda behind this bill?

Supporters like Senator Joseph Biden hem and haw that, despite the name, VAWA applies to both sexes. Yet they adamantly oppose explicitly gender-inclusive language. This is self-refuting, like the joke about the bad restaurant where the food is inedible and the portions are too small.

VAWA circumvents the Bill of Rights. Criminal assault charges require due process of law, but labeling something "domestic violence" allows officials to ignore constitutional protections: the presumption of innocence is cast aside; hearsay evidence is admissible; no jury trial is required; the accused cannot face their accusers; even forced confessions are permissible. These are the methods being used in the burgeoning system of feminist "domestic violence courts" that are created for no reason other than to bypass civil liberties protections and railroad men into jail.

VAWA: U.S. Senate Reauthorizes Organized Robbery and Child Abuse

VAWA: U.S. Senate Reauthorizes Organized Robbery and Child Abuse - David R. Usher - MensNewsDaily.com

Okay, I'm sick so no commentary and no excerpts today...

VAWA: Making Divorce Easy, Profitable and Fun

realitycheck.org


Excerpts:

The linchpin of the VAWA marriage wrecking-ball is a series of state-level laws enacted at the behest of local N.O.W. chapters. These laws define “violence” in the broadest possible terms. For example, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act defines any action that causes a person to experience “emotional distress” to fall within its umbrella of abuse.

Word is beginning to leak out that VAWA represents a grotesque violation of men’s civil rights. Worse, people are hearing that VAWA is based on a bald-faced lie – that in truth, women commit half of all domestic violence. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0629roberts
.html]

Normally Senate hearings feature witnesses who voice the full gamut of opinions. That’s democracy at work. But at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearings, only hand-picked apparatchiks who were willing to spout the VAWA party line were invited to speak.

A few men who claimed to be DV victims had requested to testify at the hearings, but they were sent away since obviously they were liars. In politically-correct society, only people who tell the truth enjoy the right to free speech.

And in the House of Representatives, VAWA operatives plan to skip the committee hearings altogether. They plan to bundle VAWA into a larger Department of Justice bill and steam-roller a floor vote by the end of the month. That’s warp speed by Washington standards.

VAWA Debate Heightens

Senate hearings are being held today in reference to the reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act. The committee has refused to hear testimony of those against the act. There is a lot of news out there about this so what follows is an ad hoc synopsis of the latest (these are only excerpts from the articles, please click on the article title to read it in full):

FAMILY GROUPS ASSAIL SENATE VAWA HEARINGS :

Washington, DC., Jul. 18/05/TRC Media/ -- The upcoming Senate hearings on the Violence Against Women Act are drawing fire from a broad range of groups who charge the July 19 hearings will provide the Senate Judiciary Committee members with incomplete and biased information about the proposed law.

This past Friday those groups released a letter to the Judiciary Committee, calling for it to "receive testimony from a diversity of witnesses, including male victims of domestic violence, women who can testify to the harm VAWA has done to them and their families, and researchers whose work is based on scientific principles rather than ideology."

Women are also criticizing the proposed VAWA legislation. In her June 29 article Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy condemned the discriminatory nature of VAWA: "tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men." And in her July 1 column, Kathleen Parker charged that VAWA has "demonized men and made women into martyrs and victims."

RADAR, a group concerned about domestic violence bias, recently released a report that concludes, "VAWA tramples on persons' basic human rights, undermines the family, and makes a mockery of fairness and justice." RADAR calls on lawmakers to "make sure VAWA helps all victims of domestic violence." (www.mediaradar.org/RADAR_Analysis_of_VAWA.pdf). Research shows that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. "Family violence is an important social problem," Baskerville notes, "but ignoring male victims leaves half the problem unsolved."

VAWA: Information for Our Federal Public Policymakers :

The data below is not from some mens rights or anti womens rights group. In fact, the following data is on page 28 & 29 of the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored research report, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women.

The authors of this report inform our public policy makers that violence is more widespread and injurious to womens and mens health than previously thought an important finding for legislators, policymakers, and interventions planers.

Despite the reality of male victimization our public policy makers submit only the Violence Against Women Act that demonstrates little to no concern about the victimization of men.

Perhaps they just lack the facts. This is your opportunity to help them. Please FAX this to:
Arlen Specter FAX 1-202-228-1229
Orrin G. Hatch FAX 1-202-224-6331
Joseph R. Biden, Jr FAX 1-202-224-0139

It is not necessary that half of the victims be men in order for them to have access to equitable services and funding. Further, it is not necessary to minimize, marginalize or ignore male victimization in order to protect female victims from abuse.

Why Congress Must Reject VAWA :

Republicans will pass VAWA anyway --- because they haven't taken the time to develop solid pro-marriage social policy. In the short run, we must expect Republicans to require Senator Joe Biden to effect modifications making VAWA gender neutral. Republicans can vote for VAWA and the stand up for the 14th Amendment by insisting that the VAWA be made gender neutral. At minimum, funding must be provided to help men and children living in marriages where the wife is dangerous or abusive, as called for by the Safe Homes For Families and Children Coalition

VAWA is unconstitutional on its face --- just as unconstitutional as a Violence Against Whites Act would be. No court in America would permit the existence of a multi-billion-dollar federal program pretending that violence is solely a black-on-white issue and makes sure it always looks that way regardless of case facts. It is a long held tenet that law enforcement must be blind to race and sex except of course unless it has the letters VAWA in front of it.

The National Institute of Justice and the Center for Disease Control estimates that 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are the victims of domestic violence each year. According to this NIJ/CDC survey, 37% of the domestic violence is against men. 100% of the federal domestic violence funding under the Violence Against Women Act is to be used for domestic violence against women. 100% of the federal domestic violence research funds disbursed to several federal agencies is devoted to domestic.

VAWA Renewal Provides Opportunity to Stop Destruction of Innocent Cops Careers :

Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 individuals, including police officers and armed forces personnel, are prohibited from possessing a firearm if they are subject to a restraining order issued at the behest of a spouse or an intimate partner. The 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban expanded this prohibition to bar officers and service personnel from carrying weapons as part of their jobs. As a result, most police officers who are hit with restraining orders lose their careers.

Were restraining orders issued as a result of a reasonable proof of guilt, the two laws might make sense. However, according to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Womens Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" to virtually all who apply," and that "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had."

A study conducted by Massachusetts courts revealed that the majority of restraining orders did not even involve an allegation of violence. According to family law attorney Lisa Scott of Seattle, Washington, the woman saying she feels afraid' of her husband is usually enough. Men have no way to defend themselves against these accusations. Most judges grant restraining orders to any woman who applies for one, and often do so in an assembly-line fashion.

Former Torrance, California police officer John Brumbaugh recently won a seven-year legal battle after an ex-girlfriend falsely accused him of battery. Though Brumbaughs conviction was overturned and his name finally cleared, the false charges cost him his career as a police officer and several hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses and lost wages and benefits.

The Violence Against Women Act expires in September and legislation to renew it for five years was recently introduced by Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Arlen Specter (R-PA). In hearings beginning on July 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider various amendments to include in the laws reauthorization.

The Committee should repeal the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, and provide that men with restraining orders against them can still possess department-issued firearms for the purposes of their employment.

The principle of ensuring that police officers are of solid character is a good one. What is lacking in current law is a reasonable standard for punitive action. The findings of police department investigations and criminal convictions are reasonable standards. The issuance of restraining orders is not.

After the Facts, Domestic Violence Laws Still Discriminate Against Men :

The Return Of A Feminist Nutbar :

Did Phil Hartman Die from Congressionally-Sanctioned Discrimination?

Scream Queens Fuel Nightmarish VAWA System

Time to Dispose of Radical Feminist Pork :

If Republicans are looking for a way to return to their principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, a good place to start would be rejection of the coming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. It's a mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy.

The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let's hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men.

The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.

The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is "part of the gamesmanship of divorce" and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children.

A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages.

It's time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

Also, Silly Seattle always has lots to say about VAWA. Other posts on this blog is reference to VAWA can be seen here, here, and various entries on this page.

Finally, though I am reticent to do this as I don't feel you should have to ascribe to one political ideology or the other in order to see how screwed up our government is in its treatment of men and families, a new site has been established called DROP the GOP. On the site they currently are listing three issues: VAWA: A four-letter word that means tyranny, Stealing our Children for Profit and Drugging our Children by Force. Through the site (were you a confirmed Republican contributor) you can request a refund for all of you contributions and they provide the relevant links to do so. Here is the intro for their VAWA page:

One of our major concerns today is the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005 by U.S. Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). This action conclusively proves that both of our major political are anti-family and hold no respect for our civil rights or the United States Constitution. There are no words strong enough to express both the heartbreak and outrage over this betrayal of the promises to uphold and protect our family values has caused.

It must be mentioned that most of the funding for VAWA goes to the Lawyers and Social Workers whose organizations support the DNC and their anti-family progressive agenda. The GOP's support of VAWA is in effect forcing Republicans to fund the very people and agenda we have worked so hard to vote out of Congress and the White House with our tax dollars. That is intolerable!

After eleven years as law, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has done little more than destroy families and fund social engineering schemes unrelated to intimate partner violence. This dysfunctional law leaves violent criminals free to abuse at will, but inflicts brutalities unworthy of a free society on innocent victims of false allegations of domestic violence.

The plain truth is VAWA is unconstitutional. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Commerce Clause, authorizes the Congress to regulate and control personal relations between individuals. Further, the blatant and undeniable gender bias seen on the face of VAWA is discrimination against a subject class, men, in direct violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution notwithstanding pious statements to the contrary by uninformed Senators.

Irrespective of your political leanings, there is a lot of good information on the site. If you are a disgusted contributor to the Republican party you might seriously consider requesting a refund. Sadly, it appears the only way to really get the attention of our legislators is to hit them in pocketbook.

Also, to contact the legislators directly:

Sen Joseph Biden, Delaware:
1105 N. Market St. Suite 2000 Wilmington, DE 19801-1233
Phone: 302-573-6345 Fax: 302-573-6351

Sen Orrin Hatch, Utah:
104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331

Sen Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania:
711 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-4254 Fax: Fax: 215-597-0406

Critics sue to keep ex-judge off bench - New Jersey

Critics sue to keep ex-judge off bench

Excerpts:

A coalition of critics of former state Judge Marianne Espinosa filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to block her reappointment to the bench because the state Senate did not give sufficient public notice of its hearing on her nomination.

"Even if you think she was a good judge, nobody could say this was fair the way they went about this," said Princeton attorney David Perry Davis, who filed the suit in state Superior Court in Mercer County on behalf of the group. "It's just not fair to put somebody in power over the citizens without giving the citizens a voice."

The coalition, including advocates for the rights of fathers in divorce and custody cases, wants the court to postpone Espinosa's swearing-in ceremony and order the Senate to reconsider the nomination so that her critics may participate in a hearing.

An attorney for the Legislature, however, said the Senate was well within the law to suspend its usual rules and take up Espinosa's nomination on an emergency basis.

Dorsey, a Morris County Republican, said Espinosa was combative and disrespectful to attorneys and the public while on the bench. The judge also was criticized by groups that contended she showed a pro-wife bias while sitting in Family Court.

The seven plaintiffs include fathers' rights advocates Jeff Golden of Fathers' and Children's Equality of New Jersey; Gunnar Wahlstrom, president of the New Jersey Council for Children's Rights; and Dominick Romano of the Access Center Development.

Lost Liberty Hotel

I briefly discussed the Supreme Court eminent domain decision and though admittedly it is not directly related to Father's Rights - I believe, as I mentioned, it is just another gross misuse of government power.

In that vein, and for a bit of levity, I stumbled upon this press release. Basically, a developer has petitioned to build a hotel on the residence of Supreme Court Justice David Souter in Weare, New Hampshire. The hotel will be named "The Lost Liberty Hotel."

The developer claims this is a serious venture and proposes to include within the hotel a "Just Desserts Café" and a "museum featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America."

Also, a pledge was started on Pledge Bank where people are promising to spend 7 days at the hotel were it built. At this writing, 642 people have signed the pledge and it will remain active for the next 60 days. (You can sign by clicking on the Pledge Bank link).

Update: Just stumbled on this related Mens News Daily Article.

Case Study: Deadbeat Politics in Galesburg, Illinois

MensNewsDaily.com?

This is an extremely lengthy, resource filled article. I advise, if these issues are pertinent to you, to visit the site and read the article in full.

Excerpts below:

Politicians in Galesburg, Illinois think they have a plan to be a “demonstration county” for Illinois child support enforcement. Knox County State's Attorney Paul Mangieri and Judge Harry Bulkeley plan to lock up poor men behind on child support payments from Friday evening until Monday morning.

What a marvelous idea. Make it impossible for poor men to be fathers (so they cannot parent their children), and turn them into workaholics for the state. This is in addition to seizing any and all assets, taking away driver’s, business, and professional licenses so men cannot work or get to work, and inventing child support tables that pretend the father has no living expenses of his own.

Galesburg is a small town of 33,000, surrounded by expanses of cornfields.. Maytag, the largest union employer in the entire area, closed its plant in October, 2002 leaving over 1600 workers unemployed. The jobs were relocated to a Maytag plant in Reynosa, Mexico. The total ripple-through job loss is approximately 4,166 jobs. The impact on the area is devastating, especially because there is no other major employer in the area.

Every divorced father who lost his job in Galesburg as a result of the Maytag closure, but has been unable to find equivalent employment, or has been unable to get his child support modified downward immediately, has become a slave and guarantor to the welfare state and the global economy.

The Galesburg Register-Mail’s recent article “Lack of support” makes my major points for me (as quoted from their article in italics below). Bureaucrats know exactly what they are doing to insulate the state from the welfare problem it created via no-fault divorce, poor economic policy, and trying to end poverty by forcing chain-gang policies on the poor:

Illinois uses a private contractor to enforce child support, but does not provide any equivalent, easily accessible services to the non-custodial parent.

There also is a reluctance to reduce child support orders on the assumption that incomes will eventually improve. But in the meantime arrearages accumulate. According to U.S. census data. only 4 percent of noncustodial fathers who were paying child support under an order received downward adjustment when their earnings felt by more than 15 percent between one year and the next.

Now here is the clincher: Phyllis Schlafly recently pointed out that even our military reservists called into active duty in Iraq are being turned into deadbeat dads. Even they cannot get their child support modified! Missouri is the only state protecting reservists, in a law I conceived and got passed in 1991 when we initiated the first war in Iraq.

Are we a republic or a democracy?

I thought this was a very interesting article, particularly when considering our current system of "family law."

WorldNetDaily

Are we a republic or a democracy?
By Walter Williams

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution ? two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Glenn Sacks Presidential Candidate of Choice

Glenn Sacks has endorsed Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik for President. Read the article and access Sacks' interview with Badnarik at mensnewsdaily.com.

Libertarian Presidential Candidate

This is a portion of the family rights platform of Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik. You can access it directly here or access his website here.

I'm not trying to sway anyone's political beliefs - BUT Mr Badnarik is one of the very few candidates considering these issues in any type of forward thinking or constitutionally correct manner. From Republicans and Democrats we get the same rhetoric and propaganda about the role of family, deadbeat dads, etc...

No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more troubling to Libertarians -- than the role of government in family life. On the face of things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area than it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like defining and licensing marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering" the makeup and function of the family.

However, there are some areas of family life in which the federal government arguably has a role to play. The Constitution ordains that all Americans receive the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits involuntary servitude.

In both of these areas, the federal government has failed America's families and, in particular, its parents.

Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for those coming before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce proceedings, the states routinely award custody of minor children to one parent or another, relegating the other parent to the status of "second-class citizen" -- not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the best "single" parent.

This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th Amendment, even intra-state. Once one parent or another, possibly with a child in tow, moves to another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It becomes an interstate matter, and by definition therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.

As president, I will direct the Justice Department's civil rights division to investigate state policies which violate the 14th Amendment rights of parents and to pursue the elimination of those policies in court. The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child support. While it is reasonable to assess support for a minor child when circumstances dictate that he or she will be living exclusively with one parent, the matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal case.

The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously ruled that this prohibition applies to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court, often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track "deadbeat parents" across state lines in order to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional laws.

As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to child support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government officials who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with violations of the civil rights of non-custodial parents.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions?to give you answers that really work!