Quote :

"Candidate Employment Contract With the Voters Texas Congressional District 10 This Contract, freely and unilaterally proffered by Michael Badnarik, candidate for Texas Congressional District 10 to the voters thereof, may be accepted by the voters through electing him to the United States Congress November 7th, 2006. Declarations All just political authority is derived from the people, and government may only be established and maintained with their consent. In recent decades the people have been disappointed in their expectations of, and insulted by, their elected representatives and officials and have begun to feel alienated from their government. As evidence of my desire to restore honest limited government and restore trust between the people and their elected representatives, and in acknowledgment of the people's constitutional right to government by voluntary social contract, I offer this Candidate Employment Contract as my legally binding commitment to the voters of my district that I will perform as outlined below once elected to represent them in the office of Representative to Congress, or forego reelection to this office or election to any other office in the next election cycle. Action Items I. Whereas, the federal government should not be competing with private enterprise where private enterprise is competent to deliver the product or service; the federal government should not make treaties and foreign agreements that conflict with the United States Constitution; the federal government should not own properties it does not need to perform its duties; and, the federal government should not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts; I will co-sponsor with Congressman Ron Paul, or endeavor to introduce on his behalf, the Liberty Amendment, and support and promote its passage and ratification as the people's own best long-term guarantee of limited government, individual rights, and governmental compliance with the constitution. I will maintain a copy of the Liberty Amendment and a summary of my work on its behalf on a publicly accessible constituent web site. II. Whereas, it is irresponsible and negligent for congresspersons to vote on legislation that has not in fact been read; I will endeavor to introduce, and if opportunity arises I will co-sponsor, a "Read the Bill" Act, which will require that adequate time be allowed for legislators to read each bill in its final form before it may be put to a vote. Once created, I will maintain a copy of this bill and a summary of my work on its behalf on a publicly accessible constituent web site. III. Whereas, federal legislation should not be an assemblage of conflicting provisions under misleading titles; I will endeavor to introduce, and if opportunity arises I will co-sponsor, a bill to create a federal statute restraining the Congress from including more than one subject per bill and requiring that the subject of every bill shall be clearly stated in its title. Once created, I will maintain a copy of this bill and a summary of my work on its behalf on a publicly accessible constituent web site. IV. Whereas, individual legislators should vote in accord with the interests of their constituents and the constitution rather than submit to the direction of other congressmen or the contrary opinions of political parties or vested interests; I will endeavor to introduce, and if opportunity arises I will co-sponsor, legislation barring either house of Congress from conducting its business under Martial Law Rule(s) without an explicit declaration of martial law being openly in place and reiterated subsequent to the inauguration of every Congress, so long as such declaration stands. Once created, I will maintain a copy of this legislation and a summary of my work on its behalf on a publicly accessible constituent web site. V. Whereas, a congressperson should make every effort to preserve all fact and appearance of integrity; No member of my immediate family will have my consent or assistance to work as a lobbyist in the state of Texas or perform lobbyist work that would require registration and compliance with the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, nor will they have access to any substantive communication with me if they take such a position over my objections. Every paid member of my staff will be required to execute and sign an affidavit attesting that they have not worked as a registered lobbyist at the state or federal level at any time during the two years previous to their becoming a member of my staff. I will maintain a copy of each staff member’s affidavit on a publicly accessible constituent web site. The intent of the parties to this Candidate Employment Contract is to hold Michael Badnarik accountable to the people of the Tenth Congressional District, in the state of Texas, for the specific performance stated in the Action Items above. Michael Badnarik understands if he is elected to office, he is an employee of the people of the 10th Congressional District, Texas. The people of the 10th Congressional District, Texas, are the employers of the person they elect to represent them in the US Congress. As employers, the people of the 10th Congressional District have a constitutional right to hold their employee accountable through the use of a voluntary Candidate Employment Contract. By electing Michael Badnarik to office, the employers willingly agree to abide by any dispute resolution decision issued by the arbitrators as outline above and forego any and all rights to appeal or other review by any Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Michael Badnarik, candidate for the office of United States Congress, Texas District 10, have executed this Candidate Employment Contract voluntarily, and I have willingly agreed to abide by any dispute resolution decision issued by the arbitrators as outline above and forego any an all rights to appeal or other review by any Court. Voluntarily signed by my hand as witnessed on this day "

Kind of refreshing, don't you think? A candidate offering a legally binding contract on his major goals. This contract seems to have more teeth in it than the GOP's "Contract With America"

11/1/2006 12:00:02 AM

It's easy to offer a contract when you are a naive idiot and know you will never have to live up to it since you won't fucking be elected, anyway.

11/1/2006 12:14:35 AM

In the end though, the answer to the "will never be elected" problem is to actualy elect the guy.

11/1/2006 12:31:45 AM

Not a legally binding contract.

11/1/2006 12:32:07 AM

I'd vote for him. He's got gumption.

11/1/2006 12:53:29 AM

Quote :

"Not a legally binding contract"

How so? I'm not an expert on contract law. There is a long section of the contract that I left out of the post that describes how any voter can take him to binding arbitration if they feel he has violated the contract.

Quote :

"Only resident constituents who were duly registered voters under direct jurisdiction of the elective office and actually voted in the most recent election at which I will have been elected may file a notice of arbitration for dispute resolution and seek relief through binding class arbitration. The decision of any two of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties and shall be delivered in writing by the concurring arbitrators to Mr. Badnarik and the party and /or parties who submitted the notice of arbitration within Ten business days after the arbitration hearing. "

The entire contract is here: http://badnarik.org/votercontract.php

Oh, and I apologize for mis-spelling "Employment" in the thread title

11/1/2006 9:08:53 AM

Quote :

"In the end though, the answer to the "will never be elected" problem is to actualy elect the guy."

i'd rather have fire ants crawl on my balls than have this guy in government.

11/1/2006 9:32:25 AM

^
Yes, of course. Liberty and Responsibility through limited government is anathema to Big Government Socialists.

I say "Release the Fire Ants!"

11/1/2006 9:42:22 AM

"Michael Badnarik"
Why does this name sound familiar? Do we know him from somewhere else?

And to the best of my knowledge a contract requires consent upon both parties. Even if Badnarik signed the contract it isn't valid until the opposing party signs it in some form. Secondly, a contract usually requires give and take to be conscionable. For example, what are the people of District 10 giving up by agreeing to the contract?

I suppose he is arguing that the act of voting for him is tacit agreement to the contract and what they are giving up is the possibility of voting for another candidate, rather convoluted and there will always be a question as to whether a secret ballot-vote constitutes consent, since you cannot prove how you voted it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to proceed in court.

on the other hand, none of these restrictions apply to arbitration. If Badnarik goes to arbitration and obeys the ruling then the enforceability of the contract is irrelevant. Of course, if once elected he ignores the contract and then refuses arbitration I suspect there will be no court in the land legally able to compel him to do so.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ..]

11/1/2006 9:43:22 AM

Quote :

" Yes, of course. Liberty and Responsibility through limited government is anathema to Big Government Socialists."

see you always parrot this bullshit. You some how forget about the liberties of other individuals and your responsibilities to the government and the nation.

11/1/2006 9:46:08 AM

Imagine if we could get a legal instrument like this created with no question to its enforcement.

And each Leviathan-party candidate had to file a Candidate Contract. Now that would be some interested reading.

11/1/2006 9:52:05 AM

that would be fucking stupid.

11/1/2006 11:10:59 AM

We'd be willing to keep this guy out of government if you'd go ahead and have some fire ants crawl around on your testicles. To make sure you do it EarthDogg can be the witness. Go, do it now.

11/1/2006 12:54:39 PM

if this happened on a larger scale, legislators would be in even more of a stranglehold by their constituency never to offend or to make tough compromises.

while this all looks great on paper (if you don't think about it critically for more than a second), the complexities of getting bills passed through the congress means that this 'contract' could never be followed by someone who intends to actually cast a vote on a single bill.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2006 12:57:34 PM

Quote :

"the federal government should not own properties it does not need to perform its duties"

As long as this doesn't mean selling off our sacred national treasures (ie: the national parks, forests, and nature preserves) and subjecting them to the whims of their owners instead of preserving them in their most natural state, as the gov. hs tried to do, then I don't see any problems with this contract.

well, aside from the fact that I'm a pragmatist and I think a binding contract that restricts one from altering course to adapt to inevitable changes, so i think its pretty stupid.

He won't win, however.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2006 1:15:22 PM

Quote :

"As long as this doesn't mean selling off our sacred national treasures"

I don't think the government has done a good job managing our sacred national treasures. I think they should sell the land to Green Peace.

11/1/2006 2:07:58 PM

Quote :

""Michael Badnarik" Why does this name sound familiar? Do we know him from somewhere else? And to the best of my knowledge a contract requires consent upon both parties. Even if Badnarik signed the contract it isn't valid until the opposing party signs it in some form. Secondly, a contract usually requires give and take to be conscionable. For example, what are the people of District 10 giving up by agreeing to the contract? I suppose he is arguing that the act of voting for him is tacit agreement to the contract and what they are giving up is the possibility of voting for another candidate, rather convoluted and there will always be a question as to whether a secret ballot-vote constitutes consent, since you cannot prove how you voted it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to proceed in court. on the other hand, none of these restrictions apply to arbitration. If Badnarik goes to arbitration and obeys the ruling then the enforceability of the contract is irrelevant. Of course, if once elected he ignores the contract and then refuses arbitration I suspect there will be no court in the land legally able to compel him to do so."

This is his "Contract with America". It is not legally enforceable, but he has stated what he stands for and what he aims to do. He is hoping this will do for him in District 10 what the Contract with America did for Republicans and Newt Gingrich.

I didn't see anyone else on here say otherwise, so a bit of education for you regarding Mr. Badnarik since I pay attention somewhat to third party politics. Michael Badnarik was the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, where he received a little less than 400000 votes nationwide. He was the only third party candidate on North Carolina's ballot in 2004, and who I voted for as a protest vote against Bush and Kerry. He was a longshot to receive the party's nomination at their convention and when he came out with the nod it was a surprise. He is very much a romantic when it comes to politics and is a true ideological believer in the libertarian idea of government staying out of people's lives in everything.

The congressman he refers to, Ron Paul, is an elected Republican in Congress. Paul is noteworthy though because he also a member of the Libertarian Party, considers himself "R/L" and was the party's 1988 presidential nominee.

11/1/2006 2:17:26 PM

11/1/2006 2:25:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't think the government has done a good job managing our sacred national treasures. I think they should sell the land to Green Peace."

I'm going to guess that was sarcastic and you actually do realize that they do a good job managing our national treasures, and should continue to do so. Subject everything else to the market, but keep Ford/Coke/Microsoft/Sean John's hands off our historic sites, memorials, parks, forests, and preserves. This is one thing I'd actually like to see as an amendment.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2006 2:30:22 PM