Thursday, September 23, 2010
Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on Private Property Rights
Thursday, September 23, 2010
-- Mead is hardly concerned with private property rights, citing lots of examples of how the Feds influence the state but no real plan for how to protect private property rights.
-- Haynes sites the constitution and plans ("I will") to use it to protect the rights of private citizens.
Haynes on Property Rights
"I will promote and sign legislation preventing the government from interfering with the lawful use of private property under the guise of protecting endangered species.
I will restore the fourth amendment rights to all Wyoming citizens by promoting and signing legislation to stop the use of Eminent Domain by private companies."
from Mead's web-page :
"In large part, we owe our beautiful vistas, open spaces, clean environment, and recreational opportunities to private landowners. Private property rights and our land and water must be protected. The federal government, through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the proposed amendment to the Clean Water Act, continues to try to encroach on these rights. It’s time for that to stop."
----- Haynes on Property Rights -----
What would the Founders say about Private Property Rights?
No matter what Mead says, it seems there are his own words that contradict what he says he believes.
For Example ...
Mead: "The federal government ... continues to try to encroach on these(private property) rights. It’s time for that to stop." But when it comes to actually having a stance on acting on those beliefs, he can't find solid footing.
-- Sheriff Richard Mack has a history of fighting for State and Individual Rights up against the Fed - and winning.
-- Mead has declared his disagreement by having a "different perspective" with the Sheriff, who has done nothing but enforce the US Constitution.
-- Side note : Sheriff Mack endorses Taylor Haynes and he, The Sheriff, also endorsed Ron Micheli, a strong conservative candidate that Mead must have felt he needed to separate himself from, making himself more attractive to a more liberal base of voters. No?
So is Mead standing by principle and doing what is right or is he standing for whatever is opposite of conservatism and truth because that is where the people who like him are? Is that not, by definition, a major criteria for a RINO?
So where does Mead really stand on Private Property rights? ... because he claims : "Whether it takes a lawsuit, joining with other state governors, use of the bully pulpit, or a combination of those things, as Governor, I will take up the fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state."
But again, he also claims he has a "different perspective" on issues of state sovereignty as compared to that of Sheriff Mack - an advocate of enforcing the constitution - i.e. by using the LAW.
Somehow Mead sees that as "promoting violent resistance"
So there is a different perspective ... of what? the constitution?
As an acting Sheriff, Mack fought the Feds in the Supreme Court over the issue of State Sovereignty, and won. (videos w/Mack below)**
As an acting Federal Attorney, Mead fought on the side of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms against Wyoming's defense of the 2nd Amendment. Mead and the Fed's won.
Mead can't find solid ground of "Fiscal Conservatism" either ... even though he says "as a conservative" ...
How much can we believe of what Mead lathers onto his web page?
On the issue of his conservative claim to fiscal responsibility ... In his Issues on Property page :
"As the federal government becomes more saddled with debt and more unwieldy from sheer size and bureaucracy, states like Wyoming that are both fiscally disciplined and fundamentally sound will show the way, assuming the mantle of leadership while others follow our good example."
But when asked about those same issues and how they have been applied here in Wyoming : growth of government, bureaucracy, fiscal discipline, and leadership, Mead responded :
"I think the governor has responded accordingly to that and in a proper way. And so ... I do not think the growth of government in the last 6-7 years has been excessive" audio clip
Sheriff Mack interviewed in 2009 ...
----- Part 2
----- from an e-mail written by Mead in response to "Are you familiar with Sheriff Mack and his travels teaching the sheriffs in our country (about) their constitutional rights in standing up and supporting the constitution of the US when the feds are moving in on a citizen?"...
... I heard Richard Mack speak in Sublette County in February. My perspective is different from his. As a county and federal prosecutor for a number of years and as U.S. Attorney for Wyoming from 2001 to 2007, I enforced criminal laws, including laws prohibiting illegal drugs. I have seen from my work as a prosecutor how drug use, abuse, and trafficking takes a huge societal toll, ruins lives and families, brings about violence and death. Regarding federal overreach, I would seek a court injunction or judicial determination, not promote violent resistance, because our country’s judicial system is set up to resolve disputes when state and federal interests collide.
Let me say further that both the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution start with the words “we the people” so first and foremost our government is to serve us. I am a strong supporter of state’s rights and individual’s rights. If elected governor, I will aggressively defend these rights against federal policies that are harmful to Wyoming. My defense of these rights will include a robust litigation agenda. Whether it takes an independent lawsuit, joining with other states, use of the office’s bully pulpit, or a combination of measures, as governor, I will proactively fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state and for the constitutional rights of the citizens of our state...
More Reading ...
Earl Taylor is the "James Kirk" of the National Center for Constitutional Studies
Posted by Lady Patriot at 11:07 AM