- 2022 -
In 1787, Anti-Federalists opposed ratifying the U.S. Constitution because they feared the new federal government would become too powerful and would threaten individual liberties without a Bill of Rights. Understandably, Anti-Federalists did not trust politicians to constrain themselves or to recognize individual rights without a constitutional requirement to do so. Ultimately, the Federalists compromised with the Anti-Federalists and adopted our Bill of Rights during America’s First Congress on December 15, 1791. Thanks to Anti-Federalist voices, our guarantee of personal freedom is enshrined as our Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, even with our rights now clearly established, Oregon lawmakers are drafting and passing laws that fail to recognize individual rights. Even worse, legislators enable state agencies, headed by unelected bureaucrats, to adopt guidance documents and rules with no regard for our individual rights.
I recognize and respect your individual liberties!
Speaking of state agencies, have you ever felt like you can’t win when you’re in disagreement with one? State agencies have unencumbered power because they operate at the direction of the executive branch, create their own rules as the legislative branch, and interpret their own rules as the judicial branch. All this power comes without political accountability! It doesn’t have to be this way.
Administrative agencies only possess the powers conferred upon them by the legislature through statutes. Administrative agencies cannot lawfully exceed the authority granted to them by the legislature. I will work to restrict the powers conferred upon our state administrative agencies. Elected legislators, not unelected agency bureaucrats, need to create the laws and be accountable for those decisions.
The legislature must not unduly delegate its authority to administrative agencies.
Self-Protection, 2nd Amendment Rights
The U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution guarantee the unalienable right of all people to use any reasonable and necessary force to defend themselves, others, and their property without fear of criminal or civil punishment. All law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and such rights shall not be infringed upon.
In 2021, I conducted legal research for The Heritage Foundation on Oregon’s election laws. The results from that study can be found here: Election Integrity Scorecard | The Heritage Foundation. Oregon ranked 48th! We have work to do. I believe that to protect the integrity of our elections, every voter must prove their United States citizenship, Oregon residency, and age. All phases of election operations must be transparent and subject to challenge. Penalties for election law violations must be consistently and strictly enforced. In support of the United States Constitution, I oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in order to preserve and protect the Electoral College.
Pro-Life... before and after birth
All humans are made in the image of God, with value and a purpose from conception to last breath.
I recognize some pregnancies arise in less-than-ideal situations. I believe families, communities, and churches have a duty to care for the poor, especially single moms, children, and the elderly. Government social systems are also necessary but must foster personal growth, personal accountability, and eventual independence for the dignity of those involved.
Education and Parental Rights
In 2019, I wrote a legal paper examining how the Oregon Department of Education willfully ignores and infringes upon parental rights. You can find that document here: “Oregon Department of Education’s Transgender Guidance Document: A Violation of Parental Rights”.
Private Schools and Home Schools must be left to operate without intrusion from the Oregon Department of Education. Parents have superior rights to the state in the upbringing and education of their children!
The Oregon Department of Education is failing its students and all families deserve options. I support working toward School Choice in Oregon!
I am strongly opposed to critical race theory-based curriculum. Training children to divide, evaluate, and judge people based on the color of their skin, or their gender is never acceptable under any circumstances.
Education is a state issue, under the 10th Amendment, and should remain such. The federal government has no constitutional business in Oregon education.
Law and Order
The U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution are the highest laws of the land, and all other laws must be consistent with them. I oppose introducing or passing unconstitutional laws for political gain.
Enforcement of criminal laws is necessary to protect society, hold people accountable for their actions, and to protect victims’ rights. Ideally, enforcement will also lead to reformation.
I believe that free-market capitalism, private property rights, low taxation, minimal regulation, and limited government intervention are the foundations of a vibrant and prosperous economy.
Natural Resources and Environmental Stewardship
Oregon’s natural resources, when managed responsibly, are vital to our state's environment, economy, and prosperity. I believe that individual property owners and local citizens are the best stewards of our natural resources.
Oregon can have both clean air and a healthy community with fair and reasonable air quality regulations. I do not support regulations that unduly burden Oregon businesses.
The lack of healthy forest management has devastated Oregon communities. I support sustainable, increased timber harvest on public lands. I support the streamlined reduction of hazardous fuels and expedited harvesting of burned timber resources to reduce future wildfire hazards on publicly managed lands.
Most legislative bills are not related to the hot-list of election issues or party platforms. For that reason, I’m also sharing the questions that go through my mind as I analyze prospective laws.
Does it violate the state or federal Constitutions?
Is there a similar law already in place that could be enforced or amended instead of creating a new law?
Can the issue be more effectively addressed at the local level?
Does the law preempt cities and counties from acting independently from the state on the issue?
What are local leaders and constituents saying about it?
Who is paying for it?
Who does it benefit/hurt?
Does the benefit outweigh the cost?
Does it burden taxpayers while providing only minimal or unmeasurable positive outcomes?
Is it reasonably enforceable? By whom and at what cost?
What are possible unintended consequences?
Is the policy based upon facts and reason or emotions and political interests?
What evidence is available to support claims of harm or benefits?
Does it limit the liberties of any group of people?
Is there an effective way to address the issue without infringing on personal liberties?
Is it easy to read and understand?
Are there amendments or references to other statutes complicating the meaning or understanding of the proposed bill?
Is it in the best interest of House District 17?