 |
Libertarian Candidate for Congressional District 8, Steven Stoltz needs your support!
06/24/2010
|
The following interview is with Steven Stoltz, a great constitutionalist and man who lives the principles he wishes to protect. He is quick to respond decisively when questioned on various issues. This person is a great addition to the District 8 race for Gabriel Gifford’s spot representing Arizona as a United States Legislator. As a Libertarian candidate he brings a different perspective to the race than all of the others, no party lines, and no must win primaries. He has the ability to stand on principle and Constitutional freedom.
Steven Stoltz’s personal biography allows us to see the man inside the candidate, to understand whom we may be supporting in 2010. In his words,
My name is Steven Stoltz. I currently live in Tucson, Arizona with my wife Brenda and am employed as a senior engineer by Raytheon Missile Systems. I have been with Raytheon since Feb 2006. I moved here from Rochester, New York where I was an employee of ITT Industries Space Systems Division. I have never run for public office before, but I have been actively involved in Libertarianism since I first met the Libertarian party’s founder – Dave Nolan, shortly after moving to Tucson. I met Dave through his wife Elizabeth, who is a member of my church. I have a doctorate in solid state physics from the University of Buffalo. My website seen here, Stevenstoltzforcongress
I than asked him where he stood on various “issues” that many Americans see as problems today.
Jesse M. – What is your stance on terrorism?
Steven Stoltz – Terrorism has been used as the excuse to justify wiretapping, the crackdown on civil liberties, and the erosion of 4rth amendment protections through bills like the Patriot act. More recently, Senator John McCain has sponsored S 3081 (Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution act of 2010), which – if passed – would violate the 5th and 6th amendments by giving the president the power to use his own criterion to label anyone – including U.S. citizens - as a “high value detainee” who can be detained indefinitely without a trial. I am against this anti-Constitutional trend that is inspired by the fear of terrorism. I am against Janet Napolitano’s labeling of certain right wing militia groups who exercise their 2nd amendment rights as extremists, and against their placement on a terrorist watch lists with the department of Homeland Security. And as if it wasn’t bad enough to violate amendments 2 and 4-6 of the Constitution, Joe Lieberman is now using terrorism as the excuse to violate the 1st amendment through his bill, S 3480, which would give the president the power to shut down the internet during a cyber-emergency.
Jesse M. – Where do you stand regarding the border?
Steven Stoltz – The illegal immigration issue revolves around money. Illegal aliens could not survive here without a job or a sponsor. U.S. citizens have the perception that illegal immigration is hurting this country, because illegal aliens collect entitlement benefits, send their children to schools for free, don’t have to pay taxes, and etc. There is some truth to this position, but since illegal aliens are here to perform menial tasks for a low wage – they also benefit the economy. Since Libertarians are against automatic redistribution of wealth even for U.S. citizens, the fact that illegal aliens are recipients of wealth redistribution is a moot point. I believe we should stop the practice of giving automatic citizenship (and entitlements) to illegal aliens who have children born in this country. I am in favor of using troops to patrol the border, but feel that the cost of an expensive fence is probably not justified – especially when it will still be ineffective at keeping people out. I am not against shipping an illegal alien back across the border – once they have been identified as being here illegally. However, I am against SB1070. I agree that SB1070 legitimately enforces Federal and state laws which already exist – but, the state traffic laws which it enforces impose significant civil fines for minor traffic infractions where there is no clearly defined victim. Laws against victimless crime are bad enough, but these laws also encourage the police to violate the 4th amendment to enforce them.
Jesse M. – Where do you stand on the War’s (both declared and undeclared.)
Steven Stoltz – More American soldiers have died than those who lost their lives on 9/11. This is not justified. I heard one of the Republican candidates say that we should do whatever it takes to “win” the war. We should never begin a war without a clear cut definition of what it means to “win”. The war’s primary objective was to remove Saddam, and once that was accomplished - we should have either pulled out, or given the war a more clearly defined objective. None of the nebulously stated objectives for the war justify the cost. Some think it is our job to build up the infrastructure of Iraq, and while I agree to a small extent – on the other hand, how can we justify this when our own infrastructure - medicade, Medicare, and social security are nearly bankrupt?
Jesse M. – Where do you stand on taxation?
Steven Stoltz – The federal government should be reduced to its constitutionally limited scope, and taxation should be drastically reduced. The budget should be balanced.
Jesse M. – Do you support the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms?
Steven Stoltz – There should be no restrictions on gun rights. I totally support the 2nd amendment. The same liberals who believe in regulating private ownership of guns also grow the police state and expect us to place our faith in the police. Even though the police have their proper place within society, the scope of their power should be reduced by repealing laws against victimless crime.
Jesse M. – What do you feel regarding term limits?
Steven Stoltz – Imposing term limits cuts both ways – i.e. it can forcibly remove a bad politician from office, but it can also remove a good one from office. Perhaps, after a given term has been reached – for a candidate to stay in office, they should be either approved by the state, or be required to achieve a greater majority of the popular vote than 50%. Rather than introduce term limits, I would prefer to introduce new laws that promote instant runoff voting. In instant runoff voting, the voter is allowed to rank the candidates in order of preference, and – if a candidate for office cannot take a 50% majority of the voter’s first preference, then the least favorite candidate is removed and those who voted for the least favorite candidate have their vote applied to their 2nd preference. The procedure is repeated until a candidate with a 50% majority emerges.
Jesse M - Where do you stand concerning the United States constitution specifically regarding the State of Arizona?
Steven Stoltz – I am a strong supporter of the 10th amendment, and feel that Arizona should use the 10th amendment to disregard federal laws like the health care bill and Cap & Trade. I agree with Jan Brewer’s decision to join with 15 other states to file a lawsuit in Federal court challenging the constitutionality of the health care bill. Even though I disagree with SB 1070, I think that California’s proposal to boycott Arizona, and Arizona’s potential counter-threat not to supply California with power – these both might be in violation of Article 1 section 10 of the Federal constitution. (I.e. no state shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on imports ….)
Jesse M - Do you support states rights, as per the Tenth Amendment?
Steven Stoltz – Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution defines what powers are specifically prohibited to the states, while the 10th amendment says that any power that is not specifically delineated to the Federal power by Article 1 section 8, nor is a power forbidden to a state by Article 1 section 10, is a power that is reserved to the states and to individuals. Given these Constitutional restrictions, I believe the states should resist the expanding scope of the Federal government – and enforce their rights. The power of the states is one of the checks and balances that help to restrict the power of the Federal government. Even though the 14th amendment does not permit a state the power to violate the rights of individuals, the Federal government has been violating its own 5th amendment (i.e. which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation) in order to grant individuals unlawful rights to other people’s property. To bolster up state rights, I believe that the 17th amendment (which allowed Senators to be elected by a popular vote instead of appointed by the states) should be modified to permit the states to recall a Senator. This would help to prevent Senators from voting in favor of Federal mandates that would bankrupt the states.
Jesse M. – Where do you stand on education, (bearing in mind that Cochise County has a relatively bad public education system?)
Steven Stoltz – Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution says that the Federal government shall give “no preference by any regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one state over those of another”. If the Federal government followed the spirit of that, it would not be able to collect taxes for education and redistribute it unequally to various states. The most it could do is give back to each state education monies equal to the taxes it collected from that state, without holding any of that money for itself. We know that is not what happens. The Federal government should gradually reduce the size of the Department of Education (with a corresponding decrease in the income tax), while the states gradually increase the amount of property taxes to fund schools. States should use free market principles to competitively bid for school supplies and other school necessities – to reduce cost – and states should refund a portion of the property taxes for parents who send their kids to private schools. Senior citizens whose children are grown – should be exempt from property taxes, while parents who have a large number of children attending public schools, especially those in higher income brackets, should pay more. Children’s minds should not be regarded as the captive audience of the state, and parents should have more say over their child’s experience in public schools. Teachers unions are OK, but if the majority of parents in a classroom feel the teacher is incompetent, the teacher should be fired. Parents should have input into report cards for the teacher.
Jesse M. – Where do you stand on the First Amendment, all five sections?
Steven Stoltz – I have already said that I am against Senator Lieberman’s cyber-terrorism bill’s attack on 1st amendment rights to internet free speech. The 1st amendment also speaks about using speech to petition the government for redress of grievances, but democrats in government have been scolding us like children – telling us we are wrong for having grievances!!! In the YouTube video of Gabrielle Gifford’s seen here , for example, she claims that the people who went to her town hall meetings – people who were petitioning her for the redress of grievances – “…had swastikas, were trying to denigrate the president, were shouting, and were trying to create a riot …” and that this “was not helpful to what we (she) was trying to accomplish”. It’s sad that she finds free speech such an inconvenience to her agenda!!! I promise, if elected, that I will welcome differences of opinion, and will promise to listen to people I don’t entirely agree with and try to reach compromises. I have my own personal opinions, but I will regard it one of my highest duties in public office to listen to facts presented to me from all angles, as I will be working for the people of Arizona that employ me.
I would also like to say that, not only do I believe that the government should be prevented from establishing a state religion (consistent with 1st amendment), but that – the government has far too often been trying to impose its own form of secular morality on us and I find this objectionable.
Jesse M. – Lastly if you could tell us why you chose to run, and what inspires you that would be great!
Steven Stoltz – I believe our country’s freedoms are rapidly vanishing, and I cannot sit back idly and let it happen. I believe that Libertarians like me, who am schooled in the subtleties and importance of the Constitution need to rise to the challenge and offer their service during our country’s time of great need.
Thank you Steven Stoltz for contributing this interview for the people of Arizona and in particular Cochise County!