Montana Sovereign
September 1, 2011
Volume 1, Issue 1
Focus on Sovereignty
Inside this issue Montana Recall Process.............. 2 Candidate Questions .................. 2 On State Sovereignty .................. 3 Opinion: Bullock on Sidelines..... 3 Montana Pensions ...................... 4 State Pensions Trillion $ Gap ...... 4 Legislative Scorecards................. 6
Other Information To subscribe, or contribute
articles and / or ideas, email us :
[email protected] Declaration of Independence Public domain image
Welcome Do you expect to see drastic changes in Montana’s political landscape in 2012?
We do too.
Welcome to the first issue of Focus on Sovereignty, a quarterly newsletter intended to be a resource for Montanans gearing up for the 2012 elections and beyond. Our goal is to assist freedom minded individuals and groups in Montana keep a spotlight on the issues and candidates that will serve to move our state in the right direction. We must move away from dependence on federal money and push for candidates who are willing to assert state sovereignty. We believe:
Citizens must be educated on the principles of freedom and engaged in the process of assuring our leaders uphold their oath to the United States Constitution.
Mainstream media in our state is progressively biased and has not served the people well. Montanans need an alternative source of reliable news on important issues and pertinent information.
Control of our children’s education belongs at the local and state level, and the federal government and special interest groups should not be allowed to mandate curriculums or social programs.
The internet is a godsend, and the only avenue remaining to us for gathering the information necessary to learn what to expect of candidates, to hold them accountable, and to understand key concepts and issues that impact Montanans.
Citizens must be educated about how the agendas of progressivism and the environmental movement are destroying our state and country.
Our focus will be providing Montanans with a source of credible, accurate news and information about these issues and more. Please submit articles and ideas to:
[email protected] . Put FOCUS ON SOVEREIGNTY in the subject line.
Gearing up for 2012
Ever wonder how to recall a representative in Montana? http://ballotpedia.org
Do you know what questions to ask the candidates?
Laws governing recall in Montana—The citizens of Montana are granted the authority to recall politicians by the Montana Recall Act. All state officials in Montana are subject to recall. Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, but it hasn't been clear whether federal courts would allow states to actually recall their federal politicians.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Signature requirements—Montana has the lowest percentage of signatures required for recalling elected officials in the country. It is only ten percent of voters who voted in the last general election for a statewide official and 15 percent of voters for a district official. Process—The process to recall an official in Montana begins with filing a petition with the Montana Secretary of State or the county election administrator and stating the reason for the official being recalled. The only reasons that an official in Montana may be recalled for are physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. Once the signatures have been gathered they are sent to the Montana Secretary of State or the county election administrator for approval. The task of actually approving the signatures is done by the county clerk of each county. Each county clerk has 30 days to approve of disapprove of the signatures. Conduct of election—After the petition signatures have been verified a recall election date is determined. The election is done on a yes/no ballot that simply states yes the official should be recalled and no the official should not be recalled. If the majority of voters vote to recall the official the office is considered vacant and a new election must be held to fill the vacancy. If vacancy occurs within 85 days of the general election in the second year of the term (terms are for four years), the county board of commissioners appoints a successor to serve until the election. For more information contact the Secretary of State office in Helena
2
This oath is taken by all representatives, regardless of party affiliation. But once in office, most politicians turn their back on the Constitution in the name of compromise or bi-partisanship. We need leaders with a sound understanding of constitutional principles and how to implement them. In 2010, Lake County’s Rick Jore spoke to the voting records of Senators Tester and Baucus, and our State Representative Denny Rehberg. Our Senators vote for the Constitution about 10% of the time, and during the most recent session, Mr. Rehberg had voted for the Constitution only 70% of the time. One of the most important things a voter can do is to assess a candidate’s understanding of the Constitution before you vote for them. Below is a list of questions that will help voters assess a candidate’s ability to understand and implement constitutional principles once they are in office. 1.
Do you believe the Constitution secures an individuals right to keep and bear arms?
2.
What is the purpose of government?
3.
Where do our rights come from?
4.
Do you believe the federal government has all powers except those prohibited by the Constitution, or no powers except those delegated by the Constitution?
5.
If elected you will be required by oath to uphold the Constitution. How do you define an oath?
6.
Is your oath as important and as binding as the oath of every other elected official, including that of a Supreme Court Justice?
7.
Do you agree with the principle of “the rule of law” and how do you define that term?
8.
Former Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughs said, “we are under a Constitution but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Does this statement uphold the rule of law?
9.
Some say the Constitution is a “living document.” Do you agree?
10. What does the Constitution say regarding the length of terms for Federal Judges? 11. Do you believe the Constitution prohibits State governments from acknowledging God? 12. What is the purpose of the “enumeration” of citizens authorized in the Constitution that the US Census Bureau is currently performing? (Article 1, Section 2)
What’s the Big Deal About State Sovereignty? www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ “The Tenth Amendment was intended to
confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.’’ – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931). The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.
Opinion: Bullock’s decision to
sit on sidelines fails Montanans On June 8, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard argument on one of the most important legal challenges of any American generation. The court heard a challenge brought by the attorney generals of 26 states that the provision of Obamacare requiring every American to buy health insurance by 2014 or be subject to an IRS-enforced financial penalty is unconstitutional. The discreet legal question at issue is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate, and fine, my or your decision not to purchase a good or service from a private vendor/company. The larger question for the court to resolve is whether Federalism, the principle underlying our constitutional form of government, has any meaning or guiding force in 2011 America. Despite being invited by the majority of his peers to join the lawsuit, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock made the disappointing decision to sit on the sidelines while this matter of fundamental liberty and limitation on federal power plays itself out. When asked why he declined to challenge the federal government's legislative overreaching, Bullock stated publicly that he knew the lawsuit is without merit and that the legal challenge is more about politics than it is the law. First, Bullock should never make his living by making predictions because two separate federal courts have already ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Second, despite what one thinks about the need to extend health care insurance coverage to more Americans, every Montanan should hope the federal courts invalidate this legislation. This is because, reduced to its core, the legal dispute is not simply a public policy dispute, as Bullock asserts. Rather, these suits involve the fundamental question of whether the judicial branch of government and Montana's elected officials will protect our right as Montana citizens to choose what products we want or don't want without the federal government penalizing us for that choice or making that choice for us. After all, if the federal courts rule otherwise, as a matter of legal precedent, there is nothing to stop future Congresses from passing legislation requiring that you or I buy only Chrysler products because that company has gone broke or buy a Ruger pistol because it is too expensive to incarcerate criminals. Continued on Page 5
The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies. Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.” The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies. It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers. When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor. Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.
3
Top Montana retiree gets more than $100,000 in pension benefits http://watchdog.org August 30, 2010 By Phil Drake HELENA – Montana’s top retiree gets $116,587 in annual benefits with 29 others receiving more than $70,000, according to a report prepared for a legislative committee reviewing pension costs for two state-sponsored retirement systems. The numbers are more than twice the average salary of the typical Montana worker, according to statistics. The Aug. 3 report was in response to questions from lawmakers about “salary spiking,” defined as a large increase in an employee’s salary shortly before retiring, which increases an employee’s pension benefit. One member of the State Administrative and Veteran Affairs Interim Committee tasked with looking at the retirement systems told Montana Watchdog he found the numbers to be alarming. “It just isn’t right,” said Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena. “This is Montana, we’re not California. Five, six, seven, $8,000 a month is a lot of money. We’re not a high income state.” A fellow SAVA committee member echoed those comments. “It’s kind of alarming that we’ve got people pulling those numbers – huge unnecessary benefits – out of a public retirement system that is as much as $3 billion underwater,” said Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman. The report, which SAVA members are expected to discuss at their Sept. 13 meeting, looked at the top 100 annual pensions among 2,981 Teachers Retirement System and 5,689 Public Employees Retirement System retirees for 2005-2009. In the TRS, the top 10 employees received between $96,759 and $72,253 in annual benefits. And in the PERS, the top 10 employees made $116,587 to $81,360 in annual benefits, according to the report. On the lower end of the scale, the 100th top recipient in the TRS received $48,872 in annual benefits and the 100th person listed on the PERS received $55,496.
4
State Pensions and Retiree Health Benefits: The Trillion Dollar Gap February 18, 2010 — $1 trillion. That’s the gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises. Why does it matter? Because every dollar spent to reduce the unfunded retirement liability cannot be used for education, public safety and other needs. Ultimately, taxpayers could face higher taxes or cuts in essential public services. A pensions and retiree health care report from the Pew Center on the States, The Trillion Dollar Gap: Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform, shows why states must take strong action now—or taxpayers will suffer later. Note: In April 2011, Pew released The Widening Gap, a follow-up to the Trillion Dollar Gap that analyzes 2009 and 2010 data on states' funding of pensions and retiree health care. To a significant degree, the $1 trillion reflects states’ own policy choices and lack of discipline: • failing to make annual payments for pension systems at the levels recommended by their own actuaries; • expanding benefits and offering cost-ofliving increases without fully considering their long-term price tag or determining how to pay for them; and • providing retiree health care without adequately funding it. Key Findings From Pew's Pensions and Retiree Health Care Report Retirement benefits provide a reliable source of post-employment income for government workers, and they help public employers retain qualified personnel. For states that have not been disciplined about fulfilling their obligations, the financial pressure builds each year. • In 2000, just over half the states had fully funded pension systems. By 2006, that number had shrunk to six states. By
2008, only four—Florida, New York, Washington and Wisconsin—could make that claim. • In eight states—Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and West Virginia— more than one-third of the total pension liability was unfunded. Two states— Illinois and Kansas—had less than 60 percent of the necessary assets on hand. • Nine states were deemed solid performers, having enough assets to cover at least 7.1 percent—the 50-state average—of their non-pension liabilities. Only two states—Alaska and Arizona—had 50 percent or more of the assets needed. • Forty states were classified as needing improvement, having set aside less than 7.1 percent of the funds required. Twenty of these have no assets on hand to cover their obligations. States that ignored public sector retirement challenges now face a growing bill come due—one that may have significant consequences for taxpayers. To examine the roots of the problem and how the economic crisis is spurring states into action, the Pew Center on the States held a Webinar on February 18 featuring Susan Urahn, managing director, the Pew Center on the States, and Ronald Snell, state services division director, the National Conference of State Legislatures. Download Susan Urahn's and Ronald Snell's PowerPoint slide from the Webinar or listen to audio of the event. (MP3, 25.6 MB) State Data To help policy makers and the public understand the challenges states are facing, Pew assessed all 50 states on how well they are managing their public sector retirement benefit obligations. Download the state fact sheets or use Trends to Watch to track national data and access previously unreleased data. Check out the Sunshine Review for more information about Montana pensions: http://sunshinereview.org
Steve Bullock may run for governor in 2012. Don’t Montanans deserve better leadership than this? On the sidelines Until passage of Obamacare, never in the history of our nation has Congress attempted to extend powers granted to it by the individual states under the Commerce Clause to force any and every American to purchase a private product or service. Obamacare must evaluated for what it is a gigantic expansion of federal congressional power, which usurps the powers reserved to Montana and to its people to regulate our own conduct, tramples upon my and your economic and personal freedoms, and interferes with our right to selfgovern. Attorney General Bullock's failure to challenge Obamacare is a breach of his duties as the state's top legal officer and a breach of the trust that we, as Montana citizens, have placed in him. As attorney general, Bullock has an independent obligation to both protect Montana, a sovereign power, from unconstitutional overreaching by the federal government and to protect the liberty interests guaranteed to every one of us as Montanan citizens to be free from having government regulate every aspect of our lives. Bullock should understand that sometimes, as is the case with Obamacare, this
continued from page 2
independent obligation to protect the legal rights of Montana citizens and to ensure Congress does not do permanent violence to our system of federalism requires him, as the attorney general, to take a position contrary to his political party's position. As the constitutional battle over Obamacare plays itself in the court system, we are reminded that the federal government was designed rightly by the Founding Fathers to be one of limited powers in order to guard against the erosion of both state sovereignty and personal freedoms. When the Supreme Court ultimately takes up the legal challenge, Bullock should put the Constitution first and politics second, and should affirmatively assert that Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce cannot be twisted to override the people's reserved right to choose not to purchase private goods and services, even when Congress deems the goods are "good" for us. Jim Brown of Dillon has worked as a legislative aide in Congress and clerked for the chief justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, and is currently an attorney in private practice. http://missoulian.com
5
Montana Sovereign is coalition of individuals and groups committed to preserving state and national sovereignty, the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and protected under United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We see threats to our sovereignty via a goal of assimilating the United States into a global system of government and economic control. For more that a century, this objective has been quietly implemented. Our government, academics, media, churches, and popular culture have been infiltrated with Americans serving to achieve this goal; some complicit in the plan for global governance, while others do it unwittingly as uninformed citizens. We support state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution and expect our Montana state leadership to serve notice to the federal government to cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated powers.
Legislative Report Cards Want to see how Montana’s representatives stack up to Constitutional and conservative principles? Check these resources out for more information:
Federal Legislators: The Freedom Index http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/ Freedom_Index_111-4.pdf
State Legislators: Montanan’s in Action http://spending.miamontana.com/ Montana Conservatives: http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2011/03/09/rogerkoopman-my-kind-of-republican/
We believe a greater impact can be achieved by coordinating efforts of group throughout our state. exponentially increasing single group efforts. These efforts include email, phone, and lobbying the media, public and elected leaders at the state and federal levels. We will accomplish this by: Helping citizens and freedom groups throughout Montana become more educated and knowledgeable concerning threats to sovereignty. Strengthening the state sovereignty movement in Montana by helping groups around the state keep their focus on the goal of seeking out and electing constitutionally minded candidates willing to take the steps necessary to ensure Montana restores it’s sovereignty as it was intended by the United States Constitution. Establishing an internet forum for all Montana Tea Party and Freedom groups to share information, solutions and coordinate activities related to elections, state legislation and other important sovereignty issues throughout our state. Providing news resource for Montanans related to: A. Legislator’s voting records B. Important state legislation C. Candidates for office D. Freedom group activities open to the public E. Other Montana information and sovereignty issues
About Us: Brushfires of Freedom Montana is located in the Mission Valley.
Our Mission Statement: We exist to educate and empower Montanans by providing them with the information and tools necessary to understand, actively participate in, and take ownership of their responsibilities as a citizen of Lake County, and the state of Montana. E-mail:
[email protected] Website: www.montana10.com 6
