Daniel Lewis For House 26

Government Regulating Morals of Healthcare Providers

2004-09-30T14:28:00.000-05:00

LifeNews.com reported this week that Neil Noesen, a Wisconsin pro-life pharmacist, is being legally challenged for refusing to refill a prescription for birth control pills. Neil Noesen believes that such pills can sometimes cause abortions. The complaint against Noesen arose when he refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy and was filed Friday with the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board by the state Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Before Noesen was hired as temporary pharmacist at a K-Mart store in Menomonie during the summer of 2002, he made it clear that he would not fill orders for birth control drugs he believed to be abortifacient. The managing pharmacist assured Noesen that he would not have to fill such prescriptions.
However, Noesen was the only pharmacist on duty when a customer came in with a prescription request. He asked the female customer, a University of Wisconsin-Stout student, whether she intended to use the drugs for birth control or for another reason.
When she confirmed they were for birth control, he refused to fill the order and would not tell her where she could go to get the order filled. Chris Klein, executive assistant in the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, said Noesen "apparently was willing to provide it if it was for regulating her period. "Later that day, a Wal-Mart pharmacy called to transfer the prescription request and Noesen again refused.
Eventually the managing pharmacist filled the prescription and no actions against Noesen by police. The woman complained to the Pharmacy Examining Board in July 2002. The Department of Regulation and Licensing offered Noesen a deal that would require him to pay a $250 fine, according to the Capital Times newspaper. Noesen declined to settle.
The Pharmacy Examining Board's policy allows pharmacists to opt out of filling prescriptions that violate their conscience, though state law doesn't. However, the policy requires pharmacists to transfer the prescription. A similar case arose in Texas where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a morning after pill.
The events described above show one of the fundamental flaws with government healthcare regulation. Regulations such as those that are being applied in Wisconsin violate the rights of healthcare providers to hold certain moral positions. Any time someone is forced to do something that is against their basic moral code this is wrong. For example it is wrong to require pro-life taxpayers to support government funded abortions. Healthcare should be deregulated so that patients may make their own moral choices.
I have previously advocated that the approval and regulation of medications and healthcare providers, including pharmacists and doctors, be handled by a private body rather than the government. Using the free market to make healthcare safe would allow for the existence of both a pro-life and a pro-choice approval body. In this way consumers could know by a healthcare provider’s approving body if the provider was pro-choice or pro-life. The public would be free to decide which healthcare providers they would support and which ones they would not support based on the morality of the healthcare provider and the morality of the consumer.
If such a system were in place, the student would have been able to go to a pharmacist that would not have had a moral objection to filling her prescription. The pharmacist would be able to be employed at a pharmacy that holds to the same moral views as he holds. Getting the government out of healthcare and putting it in the free market would even allow healthcare providers to work on making abortion obsolete. The Wisconsin and Texas case prove that it is time to get the government out of healthcare.

Stop the Traffic Stops

2004-07-23T22:31:00.000-05:00

As the summer winds down, the Tennessee Highway Patrol once again is stepping up their program of illegal traffic stops and car searches. Article X, Section 1 of the current Constitution for Tennessee requires all Tennessee Highway Patrol officers, and other elected and appointed state officials, to take an oath to support both the Constitution for the State of Tennessee and the Constitution for the United States of America. Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America requires an oath to support the Constitution for the United States of America. Yet with the common practice of routine traffic stops, one must wonder if any member of the Tennessee Highway Patrol has even read these precious documents they have sworn to support. Let us take a brief look at what our organic laws say about searches and traffic stops.

Beginning with the current Constitution for Tennessee, Article I, Section 7 states:

"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted."

Now let us examine traffic stops in light of this important section:

Do routine traffic stops protect persons, houses (cars), papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures? At the law, "unreasonable" means irrational; foolish; unwise; absurd; silly, preposterous; senseless; or stupid. An unreasonable searches and seizures is one that violates the elements of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Do routine traffic stops use general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places (cars), without evidence of the fact committed? Since routine traffic stops apply to all cars traveling on a designated road, they must by their nature either originate from a general warrant or no warrant at all. The implied purpose of routine traffic stop is to locate evidence of some wrong doing, and thus they cannot be executed upon a warrant based on evidence. In essence routine traffic stops assume that travelers on Tennessee highways are breaking some law. The purpose of the traffic stop is to uncover evidence that proves that people are breaking the law. The judges in Tennessee, who by the way also have sworn to uphold both the Constitution for Tennessee and the Constitution for the United States of America, should dismiss all cases arising from routine traffic stops under a principle of law known as the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule holds that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment is not admissible in a criminal trial. Law enforcement officers often get around this by asking people if they have their voluntary permission to conduct a search. "Do you mind if I look in your car?" The courts have upheld such a voluntary surrender of rights as allowable.

Do routine traffic stops seize any person or persons not named in the warrant? Legally, "size" means to take possession of someone or something. All that is required for an "arrest" is some act by an officer indicating his intention to detain the or take a person into custody and thereby subject that person to the actual will and control of the officer; no formal declaration of arrest is required. To arrest someone is simply to deprive them of their liberty by legal authority. It makes no difference how long one is being deprived of ones liberty, any time an officer deprives individuals of their liberty they are legally being arrested. So routine traffic stops actually place people under arrest without a bit of evidence to indicate that they have committed a crime.

Do routine traffic stops seize any person or persons whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence in the warrant? Since the officers conducting the traffic stops do not know what offenses they will uncover during their traffic stop, it is impossible for them to have a warrant particularly describing and supporting by evidence the offense of people being stopped. This means that at the very least routine traffic stops meet the criteria of being irrational and thus unreasonable.

Clearly the current Constitution for Tennessee, in Article I, Section 7 describes the practice of routine traffic stops as "… dangerous to liberty" and something for which permission to law enforcement "ought not to be granted." Of course the media is more than willing to promote this illegal activity by publishing stories about how a routine traffic stop caught a child pornographer or some other despicable criminal. The media will never cover how many thousands of innocent people had their rights violated by the Highway Patrol to catch that one criminal. These are the words directly from Article I, Section 7 of the current Constitution for Tennessee, which ever Tennessee Highway Patrol officer and judge in Tennessee has sworn to uphold.

Amendment IV to the Constitution for the United States of America states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Once more unreasonable searches and seizures is not to be permitted. Additionally, warrants shall only be issues, upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The nature of routine traffic stops makes it impossible for them to comply with the 4th Amendment. The 5th Amendment contains two very relevant phrases to this discussion: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." In routine traffic stops motorist are often being called upon to answer for crime without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. In most locations, the Grand Jury has been reduced to a rubber stamp of the District Attorneys cases. So once the illegally obtained evidence from a routine traffic stop is presented to a Grand Jury they will usually approve prosecution without even a second thought of the legitimacy of how the evidence was obtained.

The Tennessee General Assembly is well aware of the legal problems with routine traffic stops. A number of members of the General Assembly are even lawyers. Surely lawyers should be aware of the text of the constitutions they have sworn to support and defend. The Tennessee General Assembly should immediately put a stop to routine traffic stops. Routine traffic stops are just another example of the government using aggression and force to solve problems. Our country was founded to escape from a government that used aggression to solve its problems. In the Unanimous Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote of the King of England, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Such has been the patient suffering of Tennessee for nearly 140 years.

Not In Your Front Yard

2004-07-23T15:41:00.000-05:00

Owning ones own home represents one of the significant aspects of the American dream. As the old saying goes, “A man’s home is his castle.”   Today, some are wondering what to do when private property rights compromise a public interest in beautification. Certainly, property owners have a right to enjoy a beautiful neighborhood.

What is the best solution when our neighbors don’t share our passion for a beautiful neighborhood?   When the solution is sought through government aggression, the solution usually comes in some sort of restrictive ordinance.   For example, some ordinances regulate landscaping, boards are created to oversee alterations to historic buildings, bodies formed to govern changes to trees, committees established to dictate the design and color of new buildings, commissions convened to restrict eyesores such as strip shopping centers, laws to prohibit visual pollution such as billboards and other types of outdoor advertising, and even restrictions on parking in your own front yard.

The Chattanooga City Council’s latest proposed assault on property rights involves creating restrictions on parking cars in your own front yard.   As in other cities, Chattanooga is considering enacting some sort of “Front Yard Parking Ordinance” to deal with complaints about neighbors using their own front yards as a parking space. Those that favor such “Front Yard Parking Ordinance” complain that when their neighbors use their front yard as a parking spot it decreases the aesthetics of the neighborhood. While these complaints may have some merit, the Chattanooga City Council should seriously consider the possible outcome of making such a law.

More than likely, Chattanooga would enact an ordinance similar to that was recently enacted in Columbia, South Carolina.   Such an ordinance requires people to park on an “improved surface,” such as concrete or asphalt. In consideration of people of lower economic classes, the Columbia City Council included makeshift materials like pine straw and gravel in their definition of an “improved surface”. The objective is of course to improve the appearance of our neighborhoods. Some members of the Chattanooga City Council have raised concerns that such a restriction might lead some people replace the entire lawn in their front yard with an “improved surface”.   Certainly the widespread exchange of “improved surfaces” for nicely manicured lawns will not aid much with improving the appearance of Chattanooga’s neighborhoods.

Columbia, South Carolina has also encountered problems with enforcement of the new ordinance. Columbia has seen their complaints of violations of zoning regulations jump from 30 to more than 200, a 620 percent increase. Columbia’s zoning board reports that it has overwhelmed their department.   Often a single complaint will lead to many more investigations.   Most of these investigations take several weeks or months to resolve.   The zoning board is even asking the city council for three additional workers to enforce the new ordinance.   At this point the City Council has instructed inspectors to only investigate complaints and not directly look for violators. City officials are having to “bend over backwards” to get residents to comply with the new ordinance. The city council has still not found a way to help that retired grandmother that cannot afford an “improved surface”.      Along with the legitimate complaints workers must deal with people lodging unfounded complaints against neighbors they dislike, and others unwilling to make the necessary changes. Additionally, many Columbia residents remain ignorant of the new ordinance, despite extensive efforts on the part of the City Council to educate the public.

The non-aggressive answer is for residents to establish what are known as “as restrictive covenants” in their neighborhood.   A as restrictive covenant is a voluntary agreement among residents to comply with certain guidelines fro property appearance. Restrictive covenants are generally aesthetic controls enforced through private contracts known as deed restrictions.
Such restrictions, also known as restrictive covenants, are usually initiated by developers to blanket entire subdivisions. The restrictions are enforced by homeowners' associations, and residents of the subdivision typically have the opportunity to vote periodically, often every 20 or 25 years, to reinstate, revise, or even cancel the restrictions. Neighborhoods that already exist without such agreements would have to build a consensus among their neighbors to adopt such an agreement. Those that favor such an agreement may inform their neighbors that they are working with their neighbors to increase property values. Who wouldn’t want their property value to increase? This gives each property owner an incentive to keep his property looking good.

Courts have upheld such agreements as binding.   Deed restrictions can also govern fencing, flagpoles, the types and configuration of bedded flowers, and even architectural features, such as facades and the number of stories. The real beauty of this system is that it is completely voluntary. If a resident desiring a restriction finds himself among neighbors that do not share his desire for improving property values, then he can simply move to a neighborhood with such restrictions.   While, deed restriction enforcement can be harsh on non-conformists, but non- conformists need not buy into a restricted neighborhood in the first place. As an attorney told The American Legion (February 1996), "These agreements are voluntary contractual arrangements where you have agreed that this is how you are going to live."
As perspective home owners shop around for property, they can choose how much aesthetic protection they desire, without the government deciding for them. Private controls over the appearance of property, however nitpicky, operate through elective contracts with terms explicitly spelled out. This solution requires no enforcement at taxpayer expense and is indeed the better solution.

Taxes Violate God's Law

2004-07-20T10:24:00.000-05:00

Those that advocate more taxes violate God’s law. God commanded in Exodus 20:17 that we are not to covet that which belongs to our neighbor. To covet means to desire passionately or lust after something. When tax advocates take to the streets demanding more taxes they show their lust for the possessions of others. God says to those that lust after taxes, “Thou shalt not covet.”

God commanded in Exodus 20:15 that we should not steal. To steal from someone is to take their property against their will using force. Even if theft is for a good purpose it still violates God’s law. Taxation is theft. No one is stopping the tax advocates from writing a check to Hamilton County Schools for any amount they think is adequate. It is shameful for religious leaders to openly call for the violation of God’s Law. Isaiah 5:20 states, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil…”

Only the Libertarians offer solutions that do not cause us to covet or steal in violation of God’s law. Only Libertarians are willing to honor the free will of others, just as God honors our free will. Vote Libertarian to preserve Biblical values and morals.

Privatize our Schools Now

2004-06-24T22:37:00.000-05:00

Public education in Tennessee is in definite need of improvement. Our state run schools are failures. For example, a recent Chattanooga Times Free Press article reported graduation rates from the Hamilton County Schools at about 60%. It is widely known that private schools produce about twice the results of public schools at about half the cost. If public education in Tennessee continues its current trend it will just become a money drain. How can we fix our schools and stop them from hurtling to self-destruction?

1. The Tennessee Legislature must amend the State Constitution to remove the obligation from the legislature to provide public education.

2. The Legislature should start a five-year program to privatize all K-12 public schools in Tennessee.

3. Each county would be allowed to decide if they want to privatize their schools or keep running them themselves.

4. The counties that decide to privatize their schools would have the option of turning all their schools over to one private company or allowing each school to be separately owned and managed.

5. In each community parents would be given the option of controlling their school.

6. The first year schools would receive the same funding from the state as the year before the privatization begins.

7. Over the five years of the program state funding for the newly privatized schools would be cut by 20%. This would mean the school would have to pick up that amount from profits they maid the previous year. If a school wanted to, they could take their state funding or a portion of it and set up a scholarship trust fund.

8. Each year the state would also cut taxes by the amount they are saving on schools.

9. After five years schools could be totally privatized and removed from control of the U.S. department of education.

10. The legislature should develop a similar plan to privatize their state university system.

The privatization of our schools would not have to mean the end of free education. Those members of the community that think it is important to provide free education would be able to establish their own private school that was funded through voluntary contributions. Those supporting free education could donate as much money as they wanted to the free schools. Perhaps corporations might even set up free schools to teach students the skills they need to work for that corporation.

This is a bold plan, but it is one that can save our schools. For the sake of the children and the common good of society we must begin the process of privatizing our schools as soon as possible.

Daniel Lewis

Medical Marijuana Law

2004-06-16T18:53:00.000-05:00

Many defenders of liberty believe now would be a great time for Tennessee to consider a medical marijuana law. I would love to back such a bill, if I were elected to the state house. Tennessee should pass a law similar to the one passed by Vermont earlier this year

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/bills/senate/S-076.HTM

Daniel Lewis

Daniel Lewis launches his campaign blog

2004-06-16T13:46:00.000-05:00

I am Daniel Lewis, and I am pleased to launch my campaign blog . I want to invite everyone in Tennessee House district 26 and those outside district 26 that are concerned with liberty to join this blog as we discuss how we can make our world freer, safer, and better by honoring our neighbors choices. May we all live free. Please vist my official campaign website www.lewisdt.com/house26

Daniel Lewis