Below are the questions from VC readers which I just sent to Senator Thompson, purusant to his invitation. The readers came up with an excellent variety of questions, and I would be interested in Senator Thompson's answers to almost all of them. The campaign had only asked for 4-5 questions, and I streched by submitting 6; if there had been more questions, I would have included some of the questions on telecom policy, shrinking the federal government, and illegal immigration. I aimed for questions that were fairly specific, so as to elicit an answer (I hope) which reveals substance, rather than something that can be answered with broad platitudes. For example, Giuliani and Thompson both claim to strongly support the Second Amendment, and the Court of Appeals ruling in the DC ban on handguns and on armed self-defense; so I picked a gun question that invites a precise answer, and which could reveal differences between the candidates. In general, I aimed for forward-loooking questions ("what would you do" rather than "what would you have done?" questions). For almost all the questions, I made slight editing changes (and some I added a subquestion to get some precise information about future policy).
In general, I think that all of the questions raise important issues, and that most of them are unlikely to get asked in a standard debate format. If any other Presidential candidates want to solicit questions from VC readers, they are of course welcome to do so!
1. What is your view of civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a criminal conviction? Would you make any changes in current executive branch policies, or propose any changes in federal forfeiture laws?
2. Do you believe that Gonzales v. Raich was correctly decided? If you were President, would your Department of Justice take action against patients and providers of medical marijuana who were acting in compliance with state law?
3. If Roe v Wade were overturned, would your commitment to federalism compel you to veto a congressional bill banning abortion? Or in a post-Roe world would you seek to ban abortion by federal law regardless of the wishes of the individual states?
4. Which Attorney General do you most admire? Why?
5. Which, if any, federal gun control laws do you support repealing?
6. You were instrumental in securing passage of McCain-Feingold. Have your views on either the law's effectiveness or constitutionality changed in the years since it was passed, and what would you do about the continually-increasing purview of the Federal Elections Commission? Would you favor new legislation to protect the Internet or non-profits from McCain-Feingold?
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Questions for Senator Thompson:
- Ask Fred Thompson a question:
I think the Attorney General question is an excellent opportunity for him to mention Robert Jackson. And then seque into talking about the global war on terror and his views on Guantanamo. I doubt he'll do it, though.
Radioactive (to say the least).
I doubt you'll get an honest answer to any except #4.
We all know you'll have your staff winnow out the tough questions, which is rather cowardly. Be a man and ask EV to invite you to to be a quest poster on VC for a week, so we can have a full exchange of ideas.
Sincerely,
Magoo
"I'll appoint judges who are strict constructionists. My judges would not read their personal preferences into the law. Faithfully applying the rule of law would be my litmus test."
1. Should the government be able to seize cars, houses, drugs, firearms and money from drug runners before a conviction of drug running is obtained.
2. Should states be able to legalize marijuana?
3. If Roe vs Wade is overturned would you support or would you veto a federal anti-abortion law?
4. Which Attorney General do you admire? I can't remember the deeds or names of any attorney generals except some real turkeys. Any answer a candidate might make to this question wouldn't tell me much.
5. Would you support repealing the federal ban on machine guns and sawed off shotguns?
6. Do you want bloggers to be subject to control by the Federal Elections Commission?
These are questions that have real meaning to real voters. If the question lacks meaning, then any answer lacks meaning as well.
David Starr
I understand the constraints of TV putting a mold on political campaigns, but I certainly expect any candidate I'm willing to vote for to be able to give answers to hard questions beyond a sound byte if the forum permits it. Those questions might be legally phrased, but a significant number of the readers and commenters on this blog are legally oriented and are (hopefully) slightly more intellectual than the "average american."
that tells me a lot more about a candidate than a question designed to appeal to "real voters" which can be answered easily with a soundbite.
It is a sad state (pun intended) where Weber's conception of rational-legal authority has all but entirely given way to charismatic domination in modern America.
Speaking of which--I would wonder what Mr. Thompson's answer to the following question would be:
--Mr. Thompson, many in the blogosphere and the academy, as well as a large contingent of young voters, lament the devolution of political campaigns to reward form over substance. Can you give specific examples of how your campaign will fight this change to American political processes in the upcoming election?
A little middle-school-civics, I know, but important nonetheless.
That being said, I'd love someone to ask him to name five laws, other than forced slavery, that are beyond the constitutional powers of congress to enact; that is, name 5 laws Congress could not pass without violating the constitution.
"If you think this is other peoples Fault" Section:
Pointing the finger at others, instead of proposing a solution, is Unproductive, EVERY TIME. Be a Solution Provider. Blaming others for a problem will not Fix it, and their opinion may very well co-contribute to the Solution...
(PS: I have one of those "Run Hillary Run" stickers on the FRONT Bumper of my Truck!!...:)
ONE NATION
UNDER GOD
INDIVISIBLE....
HELP COMMON SENSE WIN!
Fred Thompson 2008
Ray White
Texas
Responding to, and Welcome all Emailed Replies...
Even the most heralded "substantive" campaign of all-time --- the Lincoln-Douglas debates that surrounded the state legislative elections in Illinois in 1858 --- were strategic rhetorical contests that featured platitudes and negative hyperbolic accusations far more than they featured substantive issue debate.
Even the most dire election in American history --- 1860 --- was conducted with an air of celebration no different than other, more ordinary elections. If you are seeking to replace the confetti, parades, and optimism with academic policy debates, you will always be disappointed. If you seek to find them in the past, you will be equally as dissapointed.
Unlike Ron Paul
Obviously this list was compiled by someone interested mostly in libertarian issues. Hey, I dislike asset forfeiture laws as much as the next barrister, but I haven't heard Joe Q. Voter gripe much.
I don't see any of these lawyerly questions raising beads of sweat on a candidate with sufficient time to prepare an answer. And not even one question on Iraq, foreign affairs or habeas? Do we just not care?
1. Does the US have the right to hold prisoner enemy fighters simply because they are enemy fighters, or must all captured enemy fighters be given a regular civilian criminal jury trial and released if the prosecutor cannot obtain a conviction? Especially as many, perhaps most, enemy fighters are only guilty of bearing arms against the United States on foreign soil?
2. Does the US government have the right to wiretap (real phone, cell phone, and email) enemy agents without a warrant? During the cold war we tapped and bugged the Soviets where ever we found them as a matter of national defense. Surely Al Quaida deserves to be treated as toughly as the Soviets were. Related question, can the unwarranted wiretap evidence be used in court, in the unlikely event that we take them alive and give them a trial?