We believe that all citizens and authorized residents of the United States shall enjoy, to the maximum extent possible, personal autonomy and freedom, subject only to reasonable restraint to prevent force or fraud committed upon another. We declare that all persons are endowed with unalienable rights from their Creator, and that governments instituted among men and women are organized for the purpose of protecting those unalienable rights.

We believe that We The People, as the only holders of rights, grant government the privilege of governing us, a privilege that we reserve the right to modify or revoke at any time for good and just cause.

We believe that The Founders intended that government flow from the bottom - We The People - upward, with state and local government holding most of the authority as they are closest to, and thus the most responsive and responsible toward, the people.

We believe that over the years since The United States was formed these principles have been increasingly compromised and that this is an undesirable state of affairs, leading to gross dereliction of duty, waste and even corruption.

We assert that only returning our state and federal government to a form that more closely represents The Founders' intent can bring remedy to the people.

Towards these ends we put forward the following platform planks:

The Constitution

We reject out-of-hand arguments that The Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” On the contrary: It is black-letter law, with a special emphasis upon The Bill of Rights, without which The Constitution would not have been ratified by the original 13 Colonies. Any assertion that the intentions of the Founding Fathers were unclear is false. The Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and James Madison's notes all provide a detailed look into the exhaustive debate of the Founding Fathers when creating The Constitution.

It is our position that the entirety of The Constitution as originally passed by the 13 Colonies, and its amendments over time, forms a binding contract with the several states and the people of this nation, and that violations thereof are thus not just a matter of individual liberty but of contract law with the several states, who have both a right and obligation to enforce their rights and those of their citizens utilizing all available state and local government resources, without exception.

Should there be need to modify The Constitution The Party asserts that there is exactly one way to lawfully do so - the amendment process - a process that was made intentionally difficult. We reject out-of-hand attempts to "end-run" the process of amendment for political or social expediency.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment was not inserted into The Constitution to protect sport shooting, hunting, or the right of self-defense; all three are beneficial side effects. Rather, The Second Amendment was clearly, from the historical record in The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist, collections of the writings of the Founders, placed into The Constitution as a final defense of the people against tyranny by government, originating either within or beyond our borders. Indeed, without The Second Amendment the Colonies refused to adopt The Constitution. The Second Amendment, as with all rights, is an individual right protected by, not bestowed by, government.

So long as The Second Amendment stands tyranny cannot be imposed upon the people.

This is not just our opinion; it is also the opinion of sitting Judges over the years, including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, widely regarded as a circuit hostile to gun rights in general (as it serves California; this opinion was, in fact a dissent!)

“The simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.”

“The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

It is our position that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms suitable for sporting, defensive and light infantry purposes, both openly and concealed upon one’s person, defined as weapons that can be reasonably carried, transported and used by a single individual. The free exercise of this right shall be subject only to verification of lack of a felony criminal record, attainment of the age of majority, and reasonable restriction on carry into places with a demonstrated reason for prohibition (such as courtrooms and bars, but all such restrictions shall be levied by The States.) The Federal Government shall preempt any and all contrary state and local regulations and laws.

We support and encourage severe legal penalties under state and local law for criminal offenses committed with any weapon, including a firearm, and for crimes properly under federal jurisdiction, by federal law as well.

The Second Amendment begins with "A well-regulated militia....." The phrase "well-regulated" in the context of the framer's speech is clear - it means "able to hit what one aims at, for the purpose one intends." A firearm in the hands of a person not comfortable and competent in its use is dangerous. As such The Party strongly supports firearms training programs as well as regular practice for all owners and encourages all who own firearms to regularly practice with and maintain them.

The Fourth Amendment

Warrantless wiretaps and other similar usurpations are blatantly unconstitutional violations of The Fourth Amendment. As such The Party stands opposed to all such laws and will work to repeal said laws or have them declared unconstitutional.

The Fifth Amendment

Kelo and similar decisions (eminent domain) are clear violations of the Fifth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their belongings against government "taking" for other than public use. The power of eminent domain is clearly defined as being limited to that which is taken for necessary and proper public uses such as a public road, courthouse or school.

When government abuses eminent domain to enrich certain private citizens and corporations at the expense of others it violates The Constitution. The Party stands staunchly opposed to all such usurpations.

Limited Government And Federalism

We recognize that The Constitution places stringent limits upon The Federal Government, as embodied in the 9th and 10th Amendments to same, limiting The Federal Government to its enumerated powers.

Over the years these limitations have been substantially eroded. We pledge to restore the Constitution’s partition of functions between Federal, State and Local governments, effectuated through the closing down of blatantly-unconstitutional Federal departments and programs while returning those powers to The States where they rightfully belong.

We reject out-of-hand expansive “interpretations” of the commerce clause in The Constitution, instead insisting on nothing more or less than the black letter of the printed word – Congress shall have the right to regulate only actual interstate commerce for the purpose of prevention of what amount to tariffs between the several states, not acts that could impact upon interstate commercial activities.

As one specific example of many, we reject the oft-cited principle that the shipment of raw materials into a state creates a presumption of interstate commerce, and therefore federal regulatory authority, for the finished products produced from those materials.

Social Programs and Entitlements

The Federal Government is not empowered to pass or maintain social and entitlement programs including but not limited to Social Security, Medicare, Farm Aid, block grants, and Welfare such as AFDC and WIC.

The Preamble to The Constitution often is cited as justification for such programs; it reads:

"We the People of The United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States Of America."

The Preamble is a general statement of principles and confers no powers. Further, it clearly states that The Constitution exists to promote the general welfare, not provide for the general welfare. As none of the enumerated powers provide a delegation of the power necessary to create these programs they are clearly unconstitutional. In addition these programs have been mismanaged and abused; indeed, it has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court that Social Security is not a retirement program or escrow for the benefit of the retiree, but is merely a tax!

These programs must be closed down at the Federal level, protecting those currently receiving benefits when possible, with The States becoming responsible for the operation, revenue raising and distribution of these programs under their own State Constitutions and body of State Law.

Our opposition to these programs at a federal level does not signal opposition to the provision of social assistance and entitlements. On the contrary; the States are the proper place for enactment and administration of such programs, as the closer to the end beneficiary of such a program is funding and administration the more accountability and efficiency will be attained. Further, States should have the right to determine what benefits they wish to provide along with levying the taxation necessary to support them.

As just one example of many if "Social Security" was a state-run program it would inherently be personally vested in the retiree, since people move from state to state and they would demand portability and personal ownership of contributed funds and their earnings.

Galveston Texas provides an excellent example of how a "Social Security" type retirement program can (and should) work.

Lobbying, PACs And Campaigns

The right of the people to elect Representatives and Senators is one bestowed upon the persons represented. As such we believe that it should be unlawful for PACs, Lobbyists and others to make a presentation of campaign or other funds to elected representatives that do not originate from and are traceable to an actual person within the district (for Representatives) or state (for Senators) represented.

As Corporations do not have a right to vote, they should be barred from donations or contributions to political campaigns and candidates, whether made in cash or “in kind.”

All lobbying must be disclosed contemporary with the act and recorded by the Senators and Representatives offices, available to The People via The Internet on an immediate basis.

“Gifts” of any item of monetary value, by any person, to any elected or appointed official shall be deemed unlawful attempts to bribe. Memorabilia of no material monetary value (e.g. “award plaques” honoring a person) shall be exempted.

Those corporations and individuals who wish to purchase “political advertising” and similar materials shall be free to do so under The First Amendment, subject only to a requirement that all purchased political speech shall conspicuously identify the organization or person purchasing same.

In short, while money may buy speech, it is not, in and of itself, speech.

The 17th Amendment

It is our position that The 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct election of Senators, can be held directly responsible for many of the resulting failures of division between Federal and State power. Specifically, it was formerly impossible for The Federal Government to "cram down" a program into The States but refuse to fund it, or to threaten The States with (for example) the loss of highway funds, as The Senate was elected by The State Legislatures who were forced to deal with the consequence of such actions.

The 17th Amendment changed the essential balance of power in Washington DC; the Founder's design had The People and The States standing equal in the Legislature with The People holding The House and The States holding The Senate. By destroying State representation in The Federal Government the essence of power was forever changed.

We support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, while realizing the improbability of it ever occurring, as sitting Senators would have to literally vote themselves out of a job. Nonetheless, we declare this amendment to The Constitution a mistake, and believe that historians will, in due time, reach the same conclusion.

The Tax Code

Nothing so corrupts government as the ability to forcibly extract taxes from the population, with private interests lobbying for their special favors to the disadvantage of the people. However, we recognize that taxation is necessary in order to fund The Federal Government and the lawful and proper exercise of its powers.

As such we stand for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the replacement of all federal income, payroll and other personal and corporate taxes with The Fair Tax as a means of insuring that (1) all persons have an inherent interest in the government they fund, (2) that those who desire and do live a more opulent lifestyle pay a larger percentage and dollar share of these expenses, and (3) that the tax system is extraordinarily difficult to “game” in that both the rate of tax and payment thereof is transparent and easily understood by all.

The Federal Government is empowered under The Constitution to levy import duties (tariffs) and excise taxes. A Federal Government that lives within its Constitutional constraints will be much smaller and have no need for the existing convoluted and abused Federal Tax Code; the rate proposed under The Fair Tax will thus shrink dramatically as programs that properly belong at the State level migrate there.

The Party stands firmly opposed to any attempt to federalize the collection of State sales taxes over The Internet. State sales taxes are imposed upon the privilege of selling tangible personal property (and sometimes services) at retail within a state; the corresponding "use tax" is levied upon consumption or use within a state. The seller in both cases, unless he has "nexus" (a business location) within the consumer's state is under no obligation to cooperate with or submit to the authority of a State in which he does not reside and The Federal Government has no Constitutional Authority to compel him to do so.

Education

The Federal Government lacks standing under The Constitution to interfere in education, as this is not a delegated power. Such powers and rights are properly reserved to The States and The People. Therefore we stand for the abolishment of The Department of Education and all Federal Code associated with the provision of education.

We are particularly opposed to the current practice of forcing invasive disclosure of family financial matters in order to obtain essentially any college-level scholarship, loan or grant assistance. Students beyond their 18th birthday are legally adults and under the law financially separate from their parents. This improper "tying" of finances, as with many other government educational programs, has contributed to the gross inflation of post-secondary educational costs resulting in students graduating with crushing levels of debt as a direct and proximate cause of government policy.

Discrimination And Race

The Constitution is clear; specifically, Amendment XIV:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Laws that provide unequal treatment as a matter of statute, intent or implementation are per-se unconstitutional, and Amendment XIV explicitly applies this mandate not only to The Federal Government but to The States as well.

There are sound arguments for the 14th Amendment having been abused as a means for The Federal Government to exert unconstitutional power over The States. The 14th Amendment was passed under duress in several states during Reconstruction, with State Governments literally threatened with continued occupation and martial law if they refused to consent.

Our issue with the 14th Amendment is that it created a "Federal Citizen" and placed it ahead of a "State Citizen." This is demonstrably backward; governments don't have rights, only people have rights; by definition a right is unalienable. That is, your rights as a person vest as a consequence of personhood and as such the "order of citizenship" must flow from the bottom up, not the top down.

We The People grant governments the privilege of governing us, and, as is well-documented in history and The Declaration of Independence, the people always reserve the right to modify or even revoke that privilege.

As a consequence of the historical record we support the intent and letter of the 14th Amendment in declaring discriminatory legislation at federal, state or local levels unconstitutional, although it is our position that The Declaration of Independence recognized the right of all people to equality under the law nearly 100 years previous, in that unalienable rights are not granted by government, they are protected by government.

While it should not be necessary in light of the above principle in today's racially-charged atmosphere we feel compelled to affirmatively declare that all citizens of this nation, irrespective of race or the color of their skin are Americans, not "African-Americans", "Polish-Americans", "Chinese-Americans."

Law And Order; Open Government

No government can long survive if certain classes of people are exempt from the laws that bear upon the populace, and indeed The Constitution prohibits the granting of titles of nobility which historically were used as a means of circumventing the civilian legal code. In addition secrecy breeds both contempt and lawlessness. As a direct and proximate result of the copious abuses in our Federal Government over the decades bred from these two facts we assert that:

• No law may be passed that exempts Congress, or any other member of government, from its reach, and we shall pass an act disabling any and all such clauses in existing laws.
• The executive shall maintain both a confidential and public reporting process for allegations of criminal conduct within Federal Government reach.
• The people shall have the right to convene Grand Juries for the purpose of investigation of Federal Government malfeasance or Constitutional Violations.
• All committee hearings, subcommittees and sessions of the Legislative bodies shall be properly noticed with both streamed real-time video and archival, permanent streaming video deliverable over The Internet to any citizen at any time on demand, excepted only for bona-fide closed sessions during a declared national security emergency.

As an example of how we believe government should comport itself The Party will conduct its policy debates and votes on amendments to the platform "in the sunshine" using Internet-accessible tools, without exception.

We further believe that The People retain the right to demand the convention of Grand Juries for federal offenses and that such Grand Juries have the right to return both indictments (signed by a prosecutor) and presentments (charges laid without a prosecutors signature.) This power was effectively "legislated away from the bench" in 1946, an act we hold unconstitutional; Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia agrees:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm?s length. Judges'direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

The Economy, Banking and Monetary Policy

Congress shall at all times retain the right of regulation of monetary policy as guaranteed under The Constitution. No claim of secrecy or other privilege by any institution dealing with monetary authority or the issuance and coining of money shall be permitted to stand. Federal Reserve operations shall be conducted in the full light of day at all times, and all transactions shall be immediately reportable to the Congress and The People.

“Banking” shall be defined in law as the taking of deposits and/or the making of loans via the utilization of fractional reserves and as such is inherently an extension of the Constitutional power to coin and regulate monetary supply.

No institution that has the privilege of interstate banking under this power, including but not limited to depository banks and The Federal Reserve itself, shall claim or exercise a right to secrecy in any part of its operations.

Banking shall be recognized as a public utility function delegated by government and strictly regulated for safety and soundness, with reserve ratios, periodic examinations and audits all accessible to the public. Any organization engaged in this function shall further be absolutely barred from speculation or trading in public or private markets by statute, whether directly or indirectly. Such limits existed until the 1990s in the form of Glass-Steagall; we explicitly support and demand that the dismantlement of this law be reversed.

The Federal Government shall not establish or maintain any system by which public debt must be purchased or maintained by any party, including The Federal Reserve or any network of "Primary Dealers"; should The Federal Government find it necessary to issue debt to fund its operations it must do so into the public marketplace, subject at all times to the free market's judgment as to the safety and soundness of Federal fiscal policy.

"White Collar" And Financial Crimes

For crimes under Federal Jurisdiction (e.g. interstate bank fraud, securities fraud, etc) the law must be significantly strengthened such that penalties are brought in line with violent interpersonal criminal offenses that do a similar amount of economic and personal damage to the victim.

Lives are literally destroyed when so-called "white collar" crimes are committed. A person who is bankrupted, rendered homeless and destitute as a consequence of securities fraud is no less harmed than someone who is robbed at gunpoint of their life savings. Our current legal code punishes the robber with 20 years to life in prison in many cases, while the white-collar criminal is sentenced to a much shorter period of incarceration.

It is the position of The Federationists that white-collar criminal offenses must carry penalties similar to that of other felonies of equitable economic impact. The DOT currently estimates the economic value of a human life at $5.8 million dollars. We therefore call for sentencing for white-collar crimes to be overhauled to be brought in line with violent criminal offenses of similar economic impact, including the possibility of life sentences.

The Environment

The emission of pollutants into the air and water are inherently unable to be confined within the boundaries of a single state, and therefore are properly the subject of Federal regulation.

However, imposing taxes or regulation with the goal of mitigating Global Warming (e.g. "Carbon Taxes") cannot be supported even though they are Constitutional (as tariffs) if imposed on the import or export of materials across our national boundary. Such proposed taxes are and will in fact be a tax on everything, as there is no item or service produced that does not require energy, from the most-basic of food to the most-complicated of electronic device.

Before we embark on such a policy - one that the fastest-growing economies, such as China and India, are intentionally being exempted from - we must first prove that these climate changes are not only caused by man, but that our course of action without the full and equal participation of these other nations will in fact lead to a resolution. At present the information available does not support both of these necessary conclusions before any such excise tax can be justified.

It is clear that all nations require a clean and productive environment. To achieve and maintain this goal proper environmental stewardship is necessary. However, it is our position that policies established to further these goals remain within the framework of black-letter law as set forth in The Constitution, as is the required standard for all laws and regulations at the federal level.

Pollutants (such as garbage created and landfilled) that are generated and remain entirely within a State's boundaries are outside the regulatory authority of The Federal Government.

Energy Policy

Our nation has abandoned a cohesive, self-sufficient energy policy for more than thirty years. We are thus saddled with a foreign policy demands driven not from our own national self-interest but that of our need to maintain our nation's energy supplies. This is an untenable position for our nation and we must reverse course immediately.

Nuclear power is the only technology available for high-quality energy production (in the form of electricity) on a mass scale. Breeder reactors are fuel-cycle positive and their construction and capability has been available to us since the 1960s. We refuse, rather than being unable, to use this technology. This is unacceptable; a combination of breeder reactors and advanced design fission plants are, in aggregate, able to operate for thousands of years using the fuel supplies known to exist within our borders.

We have the ability, given sufficient electrical generating capacity, to produce both newer-generation hybrid vehicles and biodiesel from aquaculture. Between these two technologies, along with the electrification of our rail system we can have a 100% carbon-cycle neutral transportation complex within fifty years. Personal transportation such as automobiles can easily reach 50mpg with today's technology and in excess of 100mpg (blended) in a hybrid vehicle using a small (e.g. 30-40hp) diesel engine as an adjunct to primary battery capacity. Such a vehicle cannot "run out of juice", it is refueled exactly as cars are now using our existing infrastructure, it can travel for short distances (~10-20 miles) entirely on an overnight charge consuming no liquid hydrocarbons and yet will travel indefinitely on the highway at 70mph while returning in excess of 60mpg of diesel fuel. The engine, available today, will burn any mixture of petroleum or biologically-sourced diesel.

During the time it will take to bring these energy resources online we can and must exploit the petroleum we know we have. This means drilling offshore and on, in Alaska and elsewhere, not as a means of a permanent solution but as a way to provide the energy America needs while we repair the malfeasance and misfeasance of the last thirty years. We have the technology available to extract oil and natural gas without doing material environmental damage, and we must do so.

If, in the future, battery technology advances to where we can replace liquid hydrocarbons with storage batteries while retaining the capabilities required for personal transportation then such a step should be taken. However, there is no evidence that such a breakthrough is going to occur in the short and medium term.

Solar, geothermal, wind and wave energy are all available to us but in many cases are either uneconomic or are politically sensitive, and in most cases (geothermal excepted) are not available for "base load" generation as their output depends on the vagaries of the weather. Where the argument is economic delaying their widespread use until they can be deployed in a cost-effective manner without subsidy makes sense. Where the objection is political, we must move forward, as no nation can grow and maintain its economy without securing its energy sources, and America is no exception.

This path forward requires no technological innovation we do not have, it is not "pie in the sky", it can be implemented now and yet is not being taken.

America must, and can, become energy independent. We have a workable plan to do so, and we will execute it where the provision and delivery of energy reaches across state lines.

Production and consumption of energy wholly within the borders of a State is, as with all other matters of intrastate commerce, properly beyond the reach of The Federal Government.

Foreign Policy And The Military

We cannot be the world's "policeman" nor should we be. While our form of Representative Government has proved itself over more than 200 years, we must respect the right of other nations to form other governments as they, not we, see fit.

By disentangling our energy policy from foreign lands we will be able to lead by example rather than by force, reserving the use of force for those circumstances where national interests truly intersect and the use of force, as a matter of our nation's own interest, is just. But since World War II we have taken the "easy way out", refusing to formally declare War s and instead engaging in "police actions" of various sorts. Our record of success in this regard since World War II has been, with few exceptions, disastrous.

The "War Powers Act" has historically been controversial; we argue that it must be amended to remove the "authorization of force" canard.

If we are at war, then we assert that Congress must declare War.

When we choose to use military power we will both declare War as The Constitution requires and fight to win, not to "pacify" or "secure." The ability to project military force is both a last resort and a solemn responsibility; our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less than a full commitment when we decide to employ them in the just defense of our nation's interests, and we will not commit military assets without both the will and orders to fight for one purpose: to win decisively.

The United States came under attack on 9/11/2001. Unconventional attacks pressed without the color of a national flag do not change Constitutional requirements; indeed they reinforce them, as we otherwise find ourselves without a clear mission, without clear goals and without a means to evaluate our nation's progress.

At no time shall The United States place its military forces under the command of a foreign or communal power; we will, when necessary, fight shoulder-to-shoulder with other nations, but only under the lawful orders of our Commander In Chief as set forth in The Constitution.

Our fighting men and women deserve our full support and our nation is in their debt. We pledge to provide appropriate and speedy medical care and all reasonable assistance to those wounded in service to our nation in honor of our commitment to them, as they honored their commitment to our country.

We not only recognize but affirmatively state that all members of our armed forces, active duty, reserves and retired, have taken an oath to uphold The Constitution as their supreme duty, above and beyond all others, and remind them that their oath does not expire with the termination of their enlistment.

Abortion

Regulation or protection of abortion in the first trimester is not a federally-delegated power under The Constitution and as such is beyond the reach of The Federal Government. Should the people wish to enact such regulations or protections at a federal level a Constitutional Amendment is required.

States and localities shall be free to legislate for the provision or barring of this procedure as they deem appropriate.

We declare that a fetus that would be viable if removed from the womb is entitled to the protections of personhood, including the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As a matter of policy our distinction rests with the ability of a viable fetus or infant to be cared for by any person rather than being inherently and inextricably dependant on the mother's placenta, to breathe air, to take sustenance and to survive and grow as an individual.

We understand that abortion is a deeply sensitive subject and the people are divided. Should The People wish to declare that the state of being human vests at conception they are free to do so via Constitutional Amendment. Such an amendment would, however, prevent abortion even in the case of rape or incest (the new person's rights trump the mother's) leaving only the case of impending death of the mother as a justifiable defense (it is an affirmative defense to killing another that failure to do so would result in your own death.) Such an amendment would also bar fertility clinics from undertaking any procedure in which embryos were intentionally or negligently destroyed, as such an act would be the murder (or manslaughter) of a person.

Absent such a Constitutional proscription, or any body of law at the Federal level conforming with this interpretation, historically or otherwise, we are forced to conclude that a Constitutional argument for a Federal blanket prohibition on abortion does not exist.

Likewise, we are forced to conclude that a viable fetus is no more forcibly dependant on its mother than a born child, and separation from its mother's body does not inherently result in death, and thus such a fetus is entitled to all rights that would vest in any other person.

The Drug War

The Federal Government has no standing to interfere with the decision to regulate, permit or prohibit the use of currently-controlled substances that are manufactured and consumed entirely within a given State. Federal power is properly confined to control over interstate or international trade in such substances.

Therefore, States shall have the right to permit, regulate or prohibit the use, production and sale of controlled substances that remain within their borders as they see fit, including but not limited to "medical marijuana".

Prohibition was ended during The Depression when it was recognized that government was not only foregoing a tremendous amount of revenue in the form of excise taxes it had created the monetary fuel for criminal gangs who were inflicting vast suffering upon the public. We have repeated the same mistake with the War on Drugs, a war that we are no closer to winning now, more than fifty years on, than we were on the day it was declared.

It is time for a new path forward and recognition of the our nation's failed policies in this regard.

Immigration

America is a nation of and was founded by immigrants. Legal immigration has been a historical strength of this nation and we fully support those who wish to enter this nation for the purpose of permanent residence and ultimately citizenship, provided that they enter the nation legally and conform to the laws of both The United States and the state in which they reside. The process of legal immigration must be both streamlined and improved, as it is current both too convoluted and fraught with the potential for accidental violations that can render one's application void (or even bar an immigrant from consideration for permanent residence and ultimately citizenship.)

Those who enter this nation unlawfully, however, must be prosecuted and removed. Illegal immigration severely damages the interests of those lawful immigrants who desire to come to The United States and is thus unjust on its face.

Persons employing illegal immigrants are guilty of aiding and abetting a federal offense and must be severely punished, including both fines and prison time.

We support a statute clarifying that a person born in this nation is a citizen only if one of their biological parents is also a citizen; we declare the practice of creating "anchor babies" to be inherently abusive to the child involved and this practice must be outlawed. We further encourage States to refuse to provide entitlements to those who are not citizens; those who wish to come here to better themselves are welcome, while those who seek to come to America as a means of benefiting from the largesse of others should be discouraged.

Language

America was founded by English-speaking immigrants and a common language has strong historical correlation with the stability of nations. As such those coming to The United States for the purpose of permanent residence or citizenship shall demonstrate competence in both written and spoken English prior to naturalization. English shall be the official and only language used in and around Federal Government offices as well in the performance of official government business.