Support Russ Diamond for Lt. Governor

[RussDiamond]

interesting. i know nothing about how it was passed. what is it about Act 71 or how it was passed that is unconstitutional?

i agree entirely. i honestly am unaware of the constitutional issues you describe. can you explain them or point me to a source of info on the issue?

The main offense was what's otherwise known as "bait and switch."

The PA Constitution, in Article III Section 1 (http://www.russdiamond.org/constitution.html#art3), states:

No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose.

This is commonly known as the Original Purpose clause. It's there so We the People can follow along as the GA goes through it's procedural motions. It was one of the great improvements added at the 1874 convention.

The slots bill started out as a simple half-page bill that put the State Police in charge of background checks for individuals in the horse racing industry. Nothing at all to do with slots or gaming.

It remained as a little half page bill 5/6 of the way through the constitutionally defined process for passing bills for nearly four months, until it went to the Senate Law & Justice Committee, which then amended it into a whopping 146 page bill creating the slots industry from thin air and signed into law a mere four days later.

Here (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=2330&pn=3251) is the orignal language, and here (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=2330&pn=4272) is what we ended up with.

Once the Supreme Court ruled that this sort of procedure was "constitutional," it gave the GA a head of steam to do it again. And they did, just a couple weeks later with the pay raise.

The pay raise bill was originally, again, a simple bill which only really would have limited employees within the executive branch form earning more than the Governor. This time, they waited until it wnet to conference committee to throw out that simple language and replace it with 22 pages of giant pay raises for themselves and everyone else, including the courts.

Here's the original (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=1521&pn=1865) and here (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=1521&pn=2570) is the final version.

I don't know of anyone who thinks these situations comport with the plain language of our state constitution. No one except those who got pay raises, that is. And even some of them (including sitting judges) have quietly told me they know it to be wholly unconstitutional.

There are some who claim that this was really the result of a "deal" between the GA and the PASC. Basically, 'you give us a favorable ruling on the slots bill and we'll give you a pay raise'. There's currently a federal case in process regarding this allegation.

let me ask you: would you support repealing state laws against gambling? how about other victimless "crimes" (drug use, prostitution, etc.)?

No victim, no crime. Try as we may, we'll never be able to effectively protect people from themselves. It sure aids in "raising revenue" and contributing to bloated government though.

that is ultimately on the voters, though. we keep voting to retain the justices. so how will referendums to challenge PASC decisions help?

either way, the voters must be woken up...somehow.

you definitely do not have to convince me of the absurdity of the PASC, though. all one has to do is read a few of their decisions. the intellectual dishonesty contained in some of them is mind boggling.

how the vote might go on any one issue isn't the point, though. if the referendum results don't actually carry any weight, then what the heck, i guess...though it seems like a giant waste of money in that case. but, if they do, it really does set up mob rule...and that is absolutely not good.

referenda overruling supreme court decision--or even pressuring the supreme court to overrule themselves--can circumvent the rights protections outlined in the constitution and, thus, do amount to mob rule, though.

i'm all for recall of elected officials and referenda of rejection for legislative measures, though. i agree with you there.

I believe that if we're attempting to reject an elected official or a PASC ruling via referendum, it would be wise to require a citation of a particular passage of the constitution that has been allegedly violated. On statutory acts by the legislature, the threshold wouldn't need to be quite so high.

Of course, at the same time we would also need to examine how Pennsylvania handles petitions of legal standing. The only petitions of legal standing currently are petitions to place someone's name on the ballot. If you've ever been involved in a legal challenge over one of these petitions, you know what a travesty that system currently is, with no real standards and judges ruling opposite ways on opposite sides of the state on the same issues at the same time.

that was your goal, though, was it not? or did i misunderstand? if it was your goal, you were effectively campaigning against some people who we very much actually do want in government. i just don't see how that is not a self-destructive approach.

No. Our goal was to focus attention on the unconstitutional acts of government by raisining as many challengers as possible, because elections are the only tool we currently have to fight back, besides begging.

Our slogan, 'Vote 'em all out', was a piece of marketing built to simplify the message. It's much easier to get people involved with that than with 'Vote this guy and this guy out, but keep this one and this one.'

People need simple calls to action. It worked.

i'm all for challengers. i'm just not for saying "throw the guy out of office just because he is an incumbant (without taking into account whether or not he deserves to be thrown out of office)".

A lot of people think we said a lot of things that we didn't really say.

anyway, thanks for your repsonse. i understand your positions much better now.

I'll try to get back here whenever I can to provide answers, but I hope you'll understand if I can't jump on things right away. It's a really big state, and I'm trying to cover all of it.

[RussDiamond]

Russ Diamond, You are a danger to our Commonwealth and I will do what ever I can to keep you from ever being elected to any office. Keep your f**kin hands off my Constitution. If you can not work within the boundaries of it go to Canada, France or England where their Constitution doesn't mean anything.

Ed, I want YOU to have control over your goverment and constitution. I get the impression you think we're talking about the US Constitution here. We're not. We're talking about the PA Constitution, which was written by the Pennsylvania Bar Association with the intent of reaching into your pocket as much as possible. If you're happy with that, more power to ya.

But you should also know that the PBA is at it again, and this time they're gunning for a graduated income tax. A dangerous bunch they are, if you care about Liberty.

There is no such thing as a limited con/con
Once you establish a constitutional convention the complete Constitution is open for modification. This is NOT acceptable.

Well, you're wrong, and of course it wouldn't be acceptable. And under Article I Section 25, no convention launched by an act of the General Assembly and funded by public resources could have anything to do with Article I, the Declaration of Rights.[/QUOTE]

As far as PACleanSweep, I’ll have to look back at some of my 2004 notes so as to not get my facts wrong. It appears that PACleanSweep only went after the Conservative Democrats and Republicans. I don’t recall you going after the very liberal Democrats that voted for the pay increase.

Asked & answered. See: Veon, Mike. I can't help that Republican voters were more apt to toss their own than Democrats. Says a lot about the mindset of those two different groups.

Thanks for your comments.

[egent]

Russ,

I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to answer the questions that have been posed to you. I appreciate your effort, and the effort of the membership here to help educate all of us that may not be as knowledgeable as we would like.

Dirk

[LittleRedToyota]

I'll try to get back here whenever I can to provide answers, but I hope you'll understand if I can't jump on things right away. It's a really big state, and I'm trying to cover all of it.

i completely understand. thank you for following up!

[RussDiamond]

Russ,
Thanks for taking the time to register at PAFOA and answer some questions. I have a few comments/questions of my own:

A refreshing opinion from a political candidate, to be sure. But, as others have suggested, this isn't how it works in reality. So, as Lt. Gov., how are you going to advocate that the Legislature adopt such a common-sense position, and do so in a way where you might gain any traction?

Again, see above. Your position on the RKBA, while similar to the views of many here, is considered by most citizens to be extremely controversial, and considered by most politicians to be dangerous to their careers. How do you plan to convince everyone that your beliefs are the right way to go? A mere statement of sensibility isn't enough.

And if you need some idea of how difficult it is to get the legislature to adopt such opinions, take a look at the battle going on over HB40. This bill would modify our existing Castle Doctrine to also include Stand Your Ground provisions outside the home, as well as civil immunity for actors who justifiably use force. Such a bill which seems common-sense to us has been languishing in committee for 5+ years.

How so? As governor, you don't have any more power to make law than as Lt. Gov. Sure, the Governor has more authority to manage the Executive, but what as governor do you believe you can do that you can't as Lt. Gov?

On a related note, if you feel this way, why are you not running for Governor?

One thing I'd like to see is a provision that requires the state constitution to be applied literally, rather than interpreted loosely. You'd think that would be a given, due to the fact that it's actually a written document, but hey, call me simplistic.

We need legislators who don't care about their future careers as legislators as much as they care about principle. It shouldn't be a career at all. It should be public service along the lines of National Guard service.

The Lieutenant Governor position is a bully pulpit. So is the Governor position, but it's more bully in that you could refuse to sign certain bills into law unless the legislature moves on other measures you favor. They can override your veto, of course, but they really need to work to do it. You take leverage wherever you can get it, especially when what you want to do is the right thing.

On the surface I understand your position, and it's an easy one to agree with, but again the devil is in the details.

The men of today are not like the men of the 1960's, who weren't like the men of the 1870's, who weren't like the men of the the 1770's. I am of firm belief that to date, no American since the Founding Fathers themselves has TRULY had an understanding of what can happen when a government stops listening to its people.

I am not well versed in the parliamentary procedure and laws surrounding constitutional conventions, so I will not argue one way or another on the issue at the moment. However, I believe you would do well to understand that given the above, if our existing system can be taken advantage of to the detriment of the average citizen, then the process by which the Constitution is changed could also be taken advantage of. And if that happens, the effects would be far, far worse to the average citizen than what has happened to date.

I believe it is the above fears of what is now in this state a moral MINORITY that give pause to the idea of a constitutional convention.

You are correct, and this is EXACTLY why the right needs to seize control of this issue before the left and the lawyers do. We will do it with honor and an eye on protecting indivdual liberty, while they will do it with an eye on how they can further increase the power of the elite Establishment few and trample freedom.

And in PA, they have the votes to do it, unfortunately. Even more reason to make our stand now.

We can't "ruin the Republican form of government" we have, or change away from it. To do so would require us to secede from the United States, as the US Constitution, vis-a-vis Article IV and the 14th and 15th Amendment, basically requires all states to guarantee a republican form of government, just as the federal government guarantees this to its constituent states.

I'd opine that it can't all be "ruined" at once, but some are sure trying to coax us out of it. The popular election of US Senators, the current movement to eradicate the Elector College are examples at the federal level. Here in PA, I could argue that the alleged "slots ruling for judicial pay raises" deal and the instances of public officials using taxpayer dollars to get themselves re-elected are definite attacks against the republican form of government.

That depends on how the recall takes place, and I'd be curious to hear your opinions on the issue.

Recalling elected officials is something that happens outside the normal election cycle, and in doing so takes away from the delegate in question the authority given to him by the people to make decisions on their behalf, as outlined by the Constitution. On the surface, that is counter to the idea of a Republican government, and is indeed mob rule, as the people are rescinding or reneging on the "contract" they agreed to with that elected official vis-a-vis their original election vote.

If however, the elected official has him/herself reneged on their part of the "contract" with the people (an ethics violation, a violation of oath of office, etc.), and such violation can be proven, then I believe a recall vote would be warranted.

Yes, it would have to be a defined process, with specific citations of unconstitutional acts and a pretty tough petition standard. You wouldn't want folks using such a mechanism willy-nilly to throw out an elected individual for mere partisan reasons.

But we hold elections roughly every six months in PA, so it doesn't have to exist outside the realm of the normal election process.

I'd appreciate if you can expound on this statement a bit.

If you're claiming that no candidates should run opposed when they're up for election, I agree with you, as competition is a good thing. However, I'm not sure how much can be done about this. Obviously election reform that would unlock the 2 party grip and make it easier for candidates to run would be extremely helpful, but other than that people can't be forced to run for office.

However, if you're additionally saying that every elected official be required to run/re-run for office every year, I disagree. Such as system, regardless of the competition, would have delegates working so hard to KEEP their jobs, that they won't actually be DOING their jobs. In addition, in contentious election years where turnover rates are high, by the time elected officials get acclimated to their post, they would likely be required to run again. In my opinion this would be the epitome of inefficiency.

I pretty much agree with you here. If we were to actually hold a legitimate discussion in PA on this subject (that would be a limited constitutional convention), I'd probably lean in favor of four-year terms for everyone. Of course, that would also need to go hand in hand with other measures to eliminate the current careerist inducements to remain in office. Part-time legislature, part-time pay, no perks, etc.

Thanks again Russ for registering on the site and reaching out to us, and I hope you'll respond to my questions/comments and continue your dialog with us all. Many of us here believe an electorate should be responsible and educated on the issues and candidates that are running, and your sharing your thoughts an opinions with us is a valuable resource in our decision-making process.

Like I said elsewhere, I'll revisit when I have a chance. I had some free time over the last few days, but I'm about to head out and pound the pavement pretty much non-stop for the next couple weeks.

You can always drop me an email at russ@russdiamond.org if you have a pressing question that requires an immediate answer. I have no gatekeepers, and answer all those messages personally. It may take a day or two to respond, but I will.

[WhiteFeather]

History is going to repeat itself again, (anyone really suprised) the lawyers and special interest groups are going to highjack the con/con again same as they did back in the 1960's.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...l-changes.html

Lawyers group creates panel on PA Constitution


The Pennsylvania Bar Association is appointing a 30-member panel to consider possible changes to the state constitution, The Associated Press reports.

The creation of the “constitutional review commission” was announced Tuesday amid continuing calls for holding the state’s first constitutional convention in more than 40 years.

The panel has 18 months to complete its review and make recommendations. Its members include lawyers, judges and constitutional scholars.

Association President Clifford Haines said it’s clear Pennsylvania’s government isn’t working for its people. He said the panel will focus on areas that include legislative reapportionment, local government, public education and taxation. The commission is chaired by former Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins.

The false promises (wishful thinking) of the supporters of a con/con will be run by the average Citizens of PA is going to be wrong again as this little news clip shows the same special interest will be driving the con/con agenda again.

So everyone expect to be screwed, also back in the 1960's gun control was just was starting up, over the last forty years it is now such a prioty that people run on gun control to get elected. Just look at the 2010 governor's race in PA on PAFOA RSS

In todays political climate expect gun control to be on top of the list by some for incorporation of changes, comprises or deleting our rights.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association is not exactly gun ownership friendly so its a golden opportunity to restrict our rights with a con/con, something they can never do Now with so many pro gun reps from the rural areas of PA holding seats.

That's right that same special interest group also want to reduce the number of Reps. Guess who loses most of the REPS, the rural areas so the big cities Reps can drive the agenda more easily. (easier to pass gun control) Giving local communities to enact their own laws - like lost & stolen.

Don't mistake the hidden agendas of a con/con as the only hope to save PA, its NOT!

[RussDiamond]

History is going to repeat itself again, (anyone really suprised) the lawyers and special interest groups are going to highjack the con/con again same as they did back in the 1960's.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...l-changes.html



The false promises (wishful thinking) of the supporters of a con/con will be run by the average Citizens of PA is going to be wrong again as this little news clip shows the same special interest will be driving the con/con agenda again.

So everyone expect to be screwed, also back in the 1960's gun control was just was starting up, over the last forty years it is now such a prioty that people run on gun control to get elected. Just look at the 2010 governor's race in PA on PAFOA RSS

In todays political climate expect gun control to be on top of the list by some for incorporation of changes, comprises or deleting our rights.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association is not exactly gun ownership friendly so its a golden opportunity to restrict our rights with a con/con, something they can never do Now with so many pro gun reps from the rural areas of PA holding seats.

That's right that same special interest group also want to reduce the number of Reps. Guess who loses most of the REPS, the rural areas so the big cities Reps can drive the agenda more easily. (easier to pass gun control) Giving local communities to enact their own laws - like lost & stolen.

Don't mistake the hidden agendas of a con/con as the only hope to save PA, its NOT!

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in your assessment of the PBA. We CANNOT allow them to hijack populist sentiment for reform and launch an unwarranted attack on individual rights.

But the alternative is NOT sitting back and just saying "no." Why? Because the left HAS THE VOTES IN PA to do whatever it wants (1.2 million more Ds than Rs registered to vote in PA), and if we sit back and do nothing they will.

The correct alternative is LEADING with a COMPETITIVE plan that protects individual rights. That was EXACTLY my intention with SB340 and HB1929; to intercept the ball before the left starting running with it. With good solid Republican prime sponsors in Harrisburg, we have an 18-month edge before the PBA and the left come up with anything concrete. Many rank-and-file Ds find my plan quite acceptable. We can short circuit the PBA and the uber-leftists by keeping this plan in the lead.

But if we just say "no," they WILL run roughshod over our rights. I talked to a smart group of patriots and gun owners just last night in Juniata County. They get this, and understand why WE must remain out front protecting the beachhead on this issue before the left gets a serious foothold.

I'll be visiting the PA Gun Owner's Association on March 11 in Knox PA (Clarion County) to deliver the same message of urgency. If anyone else belongs to other gun rights groups, I'd love an opportunity to speak with them as well and get grilled with questions. Email me at russ@russdiamond.org for scheduling info.

[spigeon]

What do you think about him? He came to my area, and I got to hear him speak to a 9.12 group. Corbett and another Lt. Gov candidate also spoke, and in my opinion, Diamond spoke better than all 3, even the Gov candidate Corbett.

He also set up a table at the PA Libertarian Convention, so I saw him again. Based on what I heard him say, the only thing I disagree with him on is term limits. He is against them. He seems pretty good on fiscal issues. He called the other two speakers that day out for saying things that go against the PA constitution, specifically pay and vouchers of state legislators.

I also have to give him credit for a creative campaign video. Where everyone else just says a thoughtless "I'm pro-jobs!", he freakin' wrote a song!

[mauser]

I've met Russ on numerous occasions and have had opportunities to talk with him one on one about several issues. Let it be known that I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time but I agree with Russ about more issues than almost any other political candidate currently running for any local political office in Pa.
The one exception is Sam Rohrer! That's a subject for another thread. I think Sam and Russ would make a great combination. In my opinion Sam is more politically experienced and as close to the ideal candidate as anyone, Russ working hand in hand with Sam is my idea of what this state needs to see transition in favor of the people instead of bigger government.

[WhiteFeather]

What do you think about him? He came to my area, and I got to hear him speak to a 9.12 group. Corbett and another Lt. Gov candidate also spoke, and in my opinion, Diamond spoke better than all 3, even the Gov candidate Corbett.

He also set up a table at the PA Libertarian Convention, so I saw him again. Based on what I heard him say, the only thing I disagree with him on is term limits. He is against them. He seems pretty good on fiscal issues. He called the other two speakers that day out for saying things that go against the PA constitution, specifically pay and vouchers of state legislators.

I also have to give him credit for a creative campaign video. Where everyone else just says a thoughtless "I'm pro-jobs!", he freakin' wrote a song!

There is a long post here already started on the Russ Diamond for Lt Governor subject, including his direct coments.

BTW he is the last person I would vote for any office, for this simple reason as part of campaign pledge says that he will not support and defend the Constitution and if elected will work to change it with a Constitutional Convention.

Not saying Mr Diamond is this or claiming he is going to do this on purpose.

Just giving this as example to show the effect of blind trust:

IF someone is a full blown communist and they said elect me to this position and I will work to change the fundamental form of government with a total re write and says just TRUST ME to fix some problem with a do over, would you support them?......

Would you vote for them?.......

Any reason legitimate reasons to fix the Constitution can be done by the amendment process, its difficult and time consuming, as it should be, its ALL PUBLIC, no back door deals, you can make input through the Reps, you get time to read and study the change and in the end you get to vote it up or down.

A CON/CON despite all the promises to the contrary can not be limited in scope and expect the big money people to screw again just like the last one did in the 1960’s, there is NO guaranty of success IF one is held. Despite the TRUST US with "hope & change" that is being offered to have a CON/CON. to fix a problem that can't be fixed safetly by other means.

But each to their own vote. We all have only one Vote to cast, make double sure it’s the best person for the task.

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...-governor.html

Anyway these two threads should be merged