Template:Article 2 Section 22: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
Despite [[Article_2_Section_22#Loophole|previous attempts to undermine its viability]] in District court in 1995<Ref name="District"> [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9918960183458933394 Vannatta v. Keisling, 899 F. Supp. 488 - Dist. Court, D. Oregon 1995]</Ref> , the Oregon Supreme Court in 1997<Ref name="supreme">[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1169752/vannatta-v-keisling/ Vannatta v. Keisling, 931 P.2d 770 (Or. 1997)] </Ref> , and the United States Court of Appeals in 1998<Ref name="appeals"> [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11439113153192091581&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr 151 F. 3d 1215 - Court of Appeals], 9th Circuit 1998. </Ref> it remains the legal terms by which they may hold office.<Ref>Article 2 Section 22 was | Despite [[Article_2_Section_22#Loophole|previous attempts to undermine its viability]] in District court in 1995<Ref name="District"> [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9918960183458933394 Vannatta v. Keisling, 899 F. Supp. 488 - Dist. Court, D. Oregon 1995]</Ref> , the Oregon Supreme Court in 1997<Ref name="supreme">[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1169752/vannatta-v-keisling/ Vannatta v. Keisling, 931 P.2d 770 (Or. 1997)] </Ref> , and the United States Court of Appeals in 1998<Ref name="appeals"> [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11439113153192091581&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr 151 F. 3d 1215 - Court of Appeals], 9th Circuit 1998. </Ref> it remains the legal terms by which they may hold office.<Ref>Article 2 Section 22 was '''NOT''' DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by US District Judge Robert E. Jones. That was not the "question before the court". I know there are people that started the lie that "Article 2 Section 22 was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by US District Judge Robert E. Jones" and unfortunately many spread that misinformation/lie but it is simply not true. We quote Vannatta v. Keisling case and its appeal and we include the actual links to the case files in the article so you can see for yourself. We not only show that Section 22 is '''[[Article_2_Section_22#Still_Law|still law]]''' as it was intended but we show you that corrupt people in government, those buying influence on a daily bases, and even the press are working to try to get the people in 2020 to [[Article_2_Section_22#Fake_Reform|vote against those reforms put in place by the people back in the '90s]]. Why would people like they be trying to nullify "Article 2 Section 22" with [[Article_2_Section_22#Fake_Reform|Senate Joint Resolution 18]] if Article 2 Section 22 was already overturned by Judge Robert E. Jones? Again that is not what the Judge decided in Vannatta v. Keisling. We try to bring it down to simple terms and kept the details in the footnotes. We have done the digging and laid it out for all to see as a service to the people but they still have to seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth.</Ref> | ||
[https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/136768/herman-baertschiger-jr#.XRDWlOhKis4 The data] tells us that Republican Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr. received a total of $155,416.91 in contributions. According to the data, he can only accept and use a total of $15,541.69 from outside of District 2. But data shows In-State funding at $112,573.75 and the Out-Of-State funding at $42,750.00. Moreover his "Top Contributors" are sometimes statewide special interest groups. But anyone seeking election may only receive 10% of their donations from outside their district. | [https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/136768/herman-baertschiger-jr#.XRDWlOhKis4 The data] tells us that Republican Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr. received a total of $155,416.91 in contributions. According to the data, he can only accept and use a total of $15,541.69 from outside of District 2. But data shows In-State funding at $112,573.75 and the Out-Of-State funding at $42,750.00. Moreover his "Top Contributors" are sometimes statewide special interest groups. But anyone seeking election may only receive 10% of their donations from outside their district. | ||
Revision as of 12:48, 11 May 2020
Article II Section 22
"And thou shalt take no gift[1]: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous." Exodus 23:8
If we just look at Article II, Section 22 of the Oregon Constitution which covers "Political Campaign Contribution Limitations"[2] , we can see plainly that a "candidate may use or direct only contributions which originate from individuals who at the time of their donation were residents of the electoral district of the public office sought by the candidate".
| Listen to or Download Audio Broadcasts |
| Download Recording #1 or press play
|
| Download Recording #2 or press play
|
| Download Recording #3 or press play
|
| Download Recording #4 or press play
|
| 9 minute clipfrom Drowned by Hate or press play
|
If we then go to Vote Smart's website, they provide factual, unbiased information on candidates and politicians to ALL Americans. The election records show that Kate Brown[3] received $20,297,458.95 in donations and only $12,703,984.53 of that was from within the state. By law, she is only allowed to recieve 10% which would be $2,029,745.90. It is clear she accepted $7,593,429.42 from outside the state. That would mean that Kate is in violation of Article II, Section 22 of the Oregon Constitution which, according to paragraph (2) of that section, means she must “forfeit the office” of the governor and “shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office.” Also, according to paragraph (4), she is guilty of a “felony” and should be charged and arrested for a "felony".
So, if Kate is not the lawful governor of Oregon because of her violation of Article 2 Section 22, then the OSP should not be doing what she says. They could be arresting her for trespass and impersonating the Governor of Oregon instead of vacating the office she now holds hostage.
"A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:19
What about other legislators?
"He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit." Proverbs 12:17
Why didn't the outspoken Republican Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr.[4] tell the people of the Governor's violation of the Article 2 Section 22 which should instantly remove her as a threat to Oregon's economy?
As we examined the data at the Vote Smart website we can see that many other legislators and elected officials are also in violation of the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
- Article II, Section 22 of the Oregon Constitution was the will of the people of Oregon and is the law for everyone seeking office in Oregon, especially for those elected officials who are sworn to uphold its terms. If society will not require honest adherence to the laws it establishes it will be ruled by the dishonest and lawless elements of society.
Still Law
Despite previous attempts to undermine its viability in District court in 1995[5] , the Oregon Supreme Court in 1997[6] , and the United States Court of Appeals in 1998[7] it remains the legal terms by which they may hold office.[8]
The data tells us that Republican Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr. received a total of $155,416.91 in contributions. According to the data, he can only accept and use a total of $15,541.69 from outside of District 2. But data shows In-State funding at $112,573.75 and the Out-Of-State funding at $42,750.00. Moreover his "Top Contributors" are sometimes statewide special interest groups. But anyone seeking election may only receive 10% of their donations from outside their district.
Herman is probably a great guy and certainly a courageous one in his fight for what he thinks as right for Oregonians. But everyone running for elected office needs to come clean [9] and abide by the law if they want to be lawmakers.
"You must abide by the law if you want to be a just lawmaker."
Both sides of the aisle need to be held to the same standard of upholding the Constitution that has given them power even if it means they must vacate their office for a Season. Even Moses knew that. [10]
Not only the governor but also many holding elected office in the State of Oregon need to step down together from those offices to set a good faith example and give their support to law enforcement in Oregon and to the courts to do the right thing and remove those who do not willingly step-down.
That will take courage and sacrifice. They have individually pledged to uphold the Constitution and they now need to mutually pledge to each other their "Sacred Honor"[11] to uphold the whole Constitution that created the office of power they sought. It would be a shot for freedom and righteousness heard round the world.
Once the elected officers of the State come clean and do the right thing, it would mean that many of the appointed officials who were chosen by candidates that legally do not have a right to the office they occupy are also holding their offices and taking their pay under false pretenses.
"And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are things] that I hate, saith the LORD." Zechariah 8:17
- ↑ The Hebrew word translate gift in Exodus 23:8 is the same word translated bribe in 1 Samuel 8:3.
- ↑ Oregon Constitution, Article II, Section 22: Political Campaign Contribution Limitations
- (1) For purposes of campaigning for an elected public office, a candidate may use or direct only contributions which originate from individuals who at the time of their donation were residents of the electoral district of the public office sought by the candidate, unless the contribution consists of volunteer time, information provided to the candidate, or funding provided by federal, state, or local government for purposes of campaigning for an elected public office.
- (2) Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate’s total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1), and the candidate is subsequently elected, the elected official shall forfeit the office and shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought. Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate’s total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1) and the candidate is not elected, the unelected candidate shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought.
- (3) A qualified donor (an individual who is a resident within the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not contribute to a candidate’s campaign any restricted contributions of Section (1) received from an unqualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate’s campaign for elected public office. An unqualified donor (an entity which is not an individual and who is not a resident of the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not give any restricted contributions of Section (1) to a qualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate’s campaign for elected public office.
- (4) A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.
- ↑ Kate Brown's Campaign Finances
- ↑ Republican Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr.
- ↑ Vannatta v. Keisling, 899 F. Supp. 488 - Dist. Court, D. Oregon 1995
- ↑ Vannatta v. Keisling, 931 P.2d 770 (Or. 1997)
- ↑ 151 F. 3d 1215 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1998.
- ↑ Article 2 Section 22 was NOT DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by US District Judge Robert E. Jones. That was not the "question before the court". I know there are people that started the lie that "Article 2 Section 22 was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by US District Judge Robert E. Jones" and unfortunately many spread that misinformation/lie but it is simply not true. We quote Vannatta v. Keisling case and its appeal and we include the actual links to the case files in the article so you can see for yourself. We not only show that Section 22 is still law as it was intended but we show you that corrupt people in government, those buying influence on a daily bases, and even the press are working to try to get the people in 2020 to vote against those reforms put in place by the people back in the '90s. Why would people like they be trying to nullify "Article 2 Section 22" with Senate Joint Resolution 18 if Article 2 Section 22 was already overturned by Judge Robert E. Jones? Again that is not what the Judge decided in Vannatta v. Keisling. We try to bring it down to simple terms and kept the details in the footnotes. We have done the digging and laid it out for all to see as a service to the people but they still have to seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- ↑ They need to metaphorically "wipe their feet" lest they slip and break the law they have sworn to uphold.
- ↑ Hebrews 11:24-27 "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."
- ↑ The final sentence of the Declaration of Independence is a promise among the signers, to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor,” and, in fact, many of them and their fellow citizens did sacrifice their lives and fortunes in service to what they knew was right.