| Home | Biography | Events | Donate | Join Team | Contact | FAQ | Issues | Newsletters | Press Releases |
Daniel E. Edmonds
These are my views...I welcome yours! Email me daniel@danieledmonds.org
The following questions have been asked through email, online debates, etc. If you have a question or comment, please feel free to contact me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Degrees
-Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Soil Science, Oklahoma State
University, 80% Complete; Currently on Hold
-Master of
Science (M.S.) in Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 2008
-Bachelor
of Science (B.S.) in Plant and Soil Sciences (Agronomy), Oklahoma State
University, 2006
What do you want to accomplish in
Congress?
One of my top priorities is to be a true representative for the
citizens of District 2 by restoring confidence in the elected position of
U.S. Representative. Confidence will be restored by being more accessible
to constituents and by being a good listener of their concerns.
Additionally, fostering more involvement of the citizenry in government and
increasing the awareness of government structure would be a priority.
Hopefully, as part of a wave of new conservatives elected to the U.S. House,
I can exert a positive influence for the restoration of our founding
principles.
Why should you get our vote?
Citizens wanting a representative who will have a visible presence
in the district, wanting someone who shares their conservative values, and
wanting a strong conservative voice should consider casting their vote in my
favor. My experiences in the following three areas are examples of why I
can be a good representative for District 2. I come from a large family
(one of twelve siblings) and I have strong family values. I believe that a
strong America is made up of strong families. My family and I have a small
business operation, otherwise known as a farming and ranching operation. I
understand the concerns of small business owners, especially those in
agriculture-related fields. Also, I have interned with Congressman Frank
Lucas and this has afforded me some knowledge of the inner workings of a
U.S. Congressional office. A vote for Daniel Edmonds is a vote for a
representative who will listen, care, understand, and stand firmly for our
conservative values.
Why are you running for this
office?
Having felt a call to serve my country, and specifically the great
state of Oklahoma, is the reason I am campaigning for the office of U.S.
Representative. Though this is new territory for me because I’m not a
politician, after much prayer, I have heeded the call and will continue to
strive for the Lord’s guidance and direction in this honorable endeavor.
Many people claim the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution gives the
Federal Government the authority to regulate health care and insurance.
What authority does the Commerce Clause grant the Federal Government?
“A perfect freedom is the System
which would be my choice.” wrote James Madison discussing the commerce of
the U.S. in a letter to James Monroe in 1785. The infant United States was
in a depression after winning Independence. The buying and selling of goods
was greatly diminished and restricted by high tariffs among the
commonwealths and by interstate competition for revenue. Foreign trade had
all but ceased with Great Britain and the West Indies. James Madison again
wrote, “If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary
to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect.” Madison
actually wished for no restrictions on commerce but realized there would
have to be unified and centralized regulations to have effectual trade.
Monroe cemented that idea when he wrote, “it can never be so regulated by
the States acting in their separate capacities. They can no more exercise
this power separately, than they could separately carry on war, or
separately form treaties of alliance or Commerce.” This thought process
culminated when Monroe and other founding fathers penned Article 1, Section
8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution giving Congress the authority “To
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes.”
If the buying and selling of health insurance was regarded the same as other commerce and the restrictions and interstate barriers lifted from health providers, a freer system would emerge. Competition would expand plans and coverage and increase the number of providers from just ten in Oklahoma to include the several hundred health providers in the U. S.
The role and authority of Congress is to promote an environment where commerce can thrive. This is accomplished through limited government, fewer taxes, a free market, and greater competition.
Dan Boren, along with many others in Congress, is proud of the earmarks they have secured for their districts. Congressman Boren has stated he would rather see Congress, not bureaucrats decide how federal tax dollars are spent. If elected, how will you approach special projects (earmarks) for the 2nd District?
An earmark allows Congress to direct already budgeted agency funds to be spent on specific projects. These are not additional expenditures and are not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that earmarks are not open to review, debate, or discussion. Many earmarks could be funded at the state level if the federal tax drain is curbed, leaving more funds at the state level. My position on earmarks: they should be limited; they should be subject to review, debate, and discussion; and they should fall within the guidelines of the powers of Congress (Article 1, Section 8; United States Constitution).
Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts was a historic victory. Massachusetts has not elected a Republican Senator in more than 35 years. What does this victory mean for the Republican Party, conservatives and the Obama agenda?
First and foremost, the election of Scott Brown has increased the Republican representation and broken the Democrat filibuster majority. This has definitely slowed the Obama agenda. This victory has seemingly encouraged “moderates” to speak out against proposed Obama policies and agendas. Today we celebrate a victory, yet the battle for Constitutional principles, limited government, and personal responsibility continues.
Only time will tell if this victory in Massachusetts furthers the conservative principles. Based on his voting record in the Massachusetts Senate, Brown could be considered the 41st most conservative or 60th most liberal member in the U.S. Senate.
Apparently, the conservative message still resonates with the American people. That message of respect for our Constitution, restricted government, recognizing the sanctity of life, and responsible individuals is the right message. Brown’s election reassures that these principles are still alive and well, even in the leftist of states.
The 1994 Republican sweep of Congress led to 100 days of conservative legislation, but history shows that not all Republicans elected stayed true to conservative values. Let’s be sure to elect a true conservative in 2010 to Oklahoma’s Second Congressional District and continue the trend of returning our country back to the principles upon which it was founded.
What do you think the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment?
There is much written evidence about the founding fathers’ intent in constructing the 2nd Amendment. They wanted to preserve and guarantee the individuals’ pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, for deterring undemocratic government, and in maintaining militias. Jefferson clarifies this intent in Commonplace Book, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
What protections are offered by the first amendment of the US Constitution? And how does this amendment affect individuals, organizations and the relationship between organizations and individuals?
James Madison authored the first amendment to reaffirm and protect the God-given rights of individuals. The first amendment prevents Congress from infringing upon these rights by prohibiting it from creating laws that promote or repress any religion; from repressing the expression of ideas in oral or written form; and from preventing individuals from peaceably gathering and requesting their government take a different direction.
In a republic where the majority rules, the founding fathers believed it necessary to protect the rights of the individual. They believed that the citizens held the greatest power in the new nation; furthermore, the founding fathers believed that an informed and educated citizenry could maintain these precious freedoms. Simply put, though society as a whole might prescribe to a different standard, the individual must still be able to express his or her ideas.
Since the time our founding fathers penned the first amendment as a protection for preserving the rights of the individual from the federal government, the Supreme Court has extended the first amendment to also protect the rights of the individual from state governments. In addition, the first amendment has been granted to organizations and corporations. These groups of citizens are able to express their views through a majority member approval. Should individual opinions within these groups differ significantly from the majority opinion, the individual has the opportunity to seek association with other groups.
Congressman Boren recently voted to increase the US Debt limit. What are the consequences of increasing our deficit spending?
Out of control deficit spending can have only dire consequences. Since October 1, the beginning of the 2010 federal fiscal year, our government has paid $70.33 billion in interest on the national debt. That is over 10% of the 2010 fiscal year-to-date federal revenue total of $693.02 billion. January 2010 was a record 16th straight monthly deficit for the government. A widening revenue shortfall will create more unemployment, higher interest rates, a weaker dollar, inflation, and a greater tax burden to pay the burgeoning interest expense of an ever increasing national debt. It will indefinitely prolong our economic recovery.
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a system of citizen legislators. What does this mean?
The founding fathers envisioned legislators assembling in Washington for a limited period of time to conduct the government’s business and returning home for the rest of the year to work at their respective vocations. This was easily accomplished in early years because Congress usually met for about four months during the winter. Congress would then recess allowing many of the early ‘part-time’ legislators who were from the agricultural sector to return home to work.
Does our current Congress represent this idea?
No. Our current congress is made up primarily of ‘career’ legislators. Now most members of Congress are ‘full-time’ legislators who do not return home to another vocation. As a result, Congress now meets year round instead of just the winter months.
Should the system be changed and if so, how?
The system should be restored back to how our founding fathers envisioned it with a system of citizen legislators. Currently Congress is in session approximately 131 days throughout the year. Time spent in Washington is necessary but the time spent in the district is equally important. We should not elect a representative who wants to be a Washingtonian and only returns to the district to meet with constituents. Instead we need to elect a representative who wants to return home to live and work.
What specific actions will you take if elected to effect this change or maintain this ideal?
As your elected representative, I purpose to be a citizen legislator and not live full-time in Washington, D. C. but spend only the time needed there to conduct the government’s business. I plan to continue to work and live on my family’s farming and ranching operation near Morris and to travel throughout the 25 counties of the Second District, meeting and listening to the concerns of my fellow citizens.
Jeffrey Kuhner a columnist for the Washington Post argues that using the so called “Slaughter Rule” is such a violation of the US Constitution that if the House uses this rule to pass the Senate health care bill it would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor and therefore would be an impeachable offense for the President as well as the Speaker of the House. Do you agree with this assessment and why?
The “Slaughter Rule” is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Although “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings….the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.” (Article 1, Section 5, Paragraphs 2, 3) On new legislation, the Constitution does not specify that votes be recorded by name unless one fifth requests it. In this particular case, more than one fifth did request because Republicans make up more than one-fifth of the membership. The only instance in which the Constitution requires a recorded vote by name is for the reconsideration of a vetoed bill.
Another consideration is that the “The House of Representatives…..shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The Speaker of the House and his/her leadership team determine what legislation and action comes to the floor. Since the impeachment would be for the Speaker, as well as the President, it is highly unlikely that any such articles of impeachment would be allowed to come before the House of Representatives. Furthermore, is passing an unconstitutional piece of legislation an impeachable offense? How many times has legislation been struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional? Recently, portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law were struck down by the Supreme Court for being in violation of the Constitution.
Now, don’t misunderstand me. I do not support the ObamaCare legislation; nor do I support the policies of Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. I do not think impeaching them based on this piece of legislation or the “Slaughter Rule” (which was not used) is the right thing to do. Instead we should put our efforts into electing true conservatives that will work on our behalf. Vote for a true conservative.
What sacrifices have you made for the United States and the people of Oklahoma – and how have those selfless efforts prepared and qualified you to be a leader at the national level?
“Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each … to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.” [GoArmy.com]
The ultimate sacrifice of laying your life on the line automatically reminds us of our soldiers who are protecting democracy across the globe. There are many others—law enforcement, firefighters, emergency personnel, etc., who selflessly serve every day. Pastors, teachers, ordinary citizens-- anyone making sacrifices by devoting time and effort to the welfare and interests of others above their own has a basic foundational qualification for representing others.
I wouldn’t put myself in the category of most of the above mentioned vocations, but in a small way I did serve the people of Oklahoma when I suspended my college degree program to serve as an Intern in the Oklahoma legislature and later to serve as an intern for Congressman Frank Lucas in Washington. D.C. I also traveled as a graduate student to Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Mexico, and Russia to conduct seminars promoting better agriculture practices to produce more food, feed, and fiber.
I really believe that all law-abiding citizens who practice integrity, live morally, pay taxes, and maintain financial responsibility are in some respect selflessly devoted to the U.S. and Oklahoma. If and when the need for sacrifice is presented I believe that citizens will rise to the occasion and selflessly give what is needed.
“The willingness of our citizens to give freely and unselfishly of themselves, even their lives, in defense of our democratic principles, gives this great Nation continued strength and vitality.” -- Ronald Reagan