Hostettler says in debate he voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and would again in 2012

[erowe1]

http://reasonbellpundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/indiana-senate-debate-at-warsaw-tea.html

At one point a very dangerous question was asked: "Who should be the next president of the United States." The reactions of the candidates indicated that they were all kinda blindsided by it and they recognized just how dangerous it was. It may have been the most revealing point of the debate:

* Behney answered first, and this was actually the high point of the morning with him. He quite eloquently answered that we don't know who that is, and that we probably "haven't heard the name yet".
* Stutzman praised Behney for his answer and expressed regret that he had to follow it. He broke the ice with naming specific people and named Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, which proved to be a popular choice with the audience.
* Hostettler said he voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and would gladly vote for him again.
* Coats mentioned a "Jim Harmon". I have no idea who that is, but Coats seemed to know him from his time in Washington and said we needed someone who could bring two sides together and not be combative. I give him credit for an outside the box answer.
* Bates expressed unabashed support for his Representative, Mike Pence. Another popular answer with the crowd.

Folks, I think this is a big deal. It's looking more and more like RP is going to run again. When he ran in 2008, he didn't have a single endorsement from a sitting member of Congress. If Hostettler and Rand both win their seats, that's two endorsements from sitting senators right there.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Wow. The more I hear about Hostettler, the more I like him. Someone should ask him about his PATRIOT Act vote; maybe he regrets it. Apart from this, I see no reason why we shouldn't wholeheartedly support him. An anti-war fiscal conservative who supports Ron Paul?

Hostettler 2010!

 

[erowe1]

Wow. The more I hear about Hostettler, the more I like him. Someone should ask him about his PATRIOT Act vote; maybe he regrets it. Apart from this, I see no reason why we shouldn't wholeheartedly support him. An anti-war fiscal conservative who supports Ron Paul?

Hostettler 2010!

He doesn't regret the Patriot Act vote. It came up in a debate recently, and I've exchanged emails with him about it. He says he would debate Judge Napolitano on whether or not it's constitutional. But he stands by his votes (both in 2001 and the renewal in 2005).

I think the thing about Hostettler is that he's not a libertarian. But he is a constitutionalist. In my opinion, most of the serious objections to the Patriot Act are on the basis of natural rights arguments more than constitutional ones. And the constitutional arguments against it (including the ones raised by Judge Napolitano) tend to be based, not on what the Constitution itself actually says, but on how judges who view it as a living document have reinterpreted it. Hostettler's really against the living document approach. I would love to see him have that debate with Napolitano. But I'd really like to see him address the Patriot Act more on the basis of basic ethical questions, rather than constitutionality.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Has he read "Nation of Sheep"?
If we requested that he debates Judge as a freedomwatch episode, I bet Judge would do it.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I really like Hostettler. Him and Rand Paul seem to be our only viable options of winning.

 

[TheSouth18]

Absentee Ballots

I sent in my request for absentee ballots for me and my wife today. Go Hostettler! Who knows, maybe I'll run if Dan Burton ever retires.

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

Has he read "Nation of Sheep"?
If we requested that he debates Judge as a freedomwatch episode, I bet Judge would do it.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/f...show-ideas/suggestions/494529-john-hostettler

 

[erowe1]

Has he read "Nation of Sheep"?
If we requested that he debates Judge as a freedomwatch episode, I bet Judge would do it.

I don't know if he has (I haven't either). I know he's seen Napolitano on a video where he talks about the Patriot Act at a Future of Freedom Foundation event. I don't know what else of Napolitano's he's seen or read. To be honest, when you watch that video with skeptical eyes, Napolitano comes across as really sensationalistic and loose with the facts. I was a little embarrassed as a fan. And the same can be said of some of the short articles he's written on the PA. I don't know about Nation of Sheep. But I've been meaning to read it in hopes that he does a better job in it.

 

[jmdrake]

That settles it. Hostettler deserves his own subforum and a mega moneybomb.

 

[sailingaway]

I think even a strict reading of the Constitution forbids the Patriot act

He doesn't regret the Patriot Act vote. It came up in a debate recently, and I've exchanged emails with him about it. He says he would debate Judge Napolitano on whether or not it's constitutional. But he stands by his votes (both in 2001 and the renewal in 2005).

I think the thing about Hostettler is that he's not a libertarian. But he is a constitutionalist. In my opinion, most of the serious objections to the Patriot Act are on the basis of natural rights arguments more than constitutional ones. And the constitutional arguments against it (including the ones raised by Judge Napolitano) tend to be based, not on what the Constitution itself actually says, but on how judges who view it as a living document have reinterpreted it. Hostettler's really against the living document approach. I would love to see him have that debate with Napolitano. But I'd really like to see him address the Patriot Act more on the basis of basic ethical questions, rather than constitutionality.

The 9th and 10th amendments had to stand for something, 'natural law' isn't drawn into the Constitution from thin air. The rights of Englishmen, at the time of our Constitution, were more than the Bill of Rights (although varying at least in specificity from those) and the point of the 9th and 10th amendments was to make it clear the founders weren't cutting the rights of the people to the stated list.

However, habeus corpus and due process are actually specified in the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

The 9th and 10th amendments had to stand for something, 'natural law' isn't drawn into the Constitution from thin air. The rights of Englishmen, at the time of our Constitution, were more than the Bill of Rights (although varying at least in specificity from those) and the point of the 9th and 10th amendments was to make it clear the founders weren't cutting the rights of the people to the stated list.

However, habeus corpus and due process are actually specified in the Constitution.

I think the 9th amendment point works, but the problem is, because if its nonspecificity, how do you argue it with someone who disagrees? I don't see a 10th amendment argument working, because the powers the Patriot Act exercises are ones that are enumerated for Congress in the Constitution (defining and punishing felonies, suppressing insurrections, making rules concerning captures on land and water). At least the Patriot Act is easier to see in the enumerated powers than tons of laws that pass all the time and that Hostettler's on record being against. On habeas corpus, yeah it's in the Constitution, it's also in the Patriot Act (albeit not the way many people envision what habeas corpus ought to be). So are warrants. When warrantless wiretaps did come up for a vote, Hostettler voted against that. Judge Napolitano insists that the warrants issued by FISA courts aren't up to snuff with the 4th amendment because the FISA courts aren't judges (I presume he means judges in Article III courts), but the 4th amendment doesn't mention judges, and as far as I have been able to find out, FISA warrants do have everything the 4th amendment requires warrants to have. Napolitano also complains about how the PA allows evidence to be admissible in court that was formerly inadmissible. But the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about admissibility of evidence, and up until a court reinterpreted the 4th amendment in 1914, even evidence that had been gotten illegally was still admissible.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree on admissibility of evidence

I think the 9th amendment point works, but the problem is, because if its nonspecificity, how do you argue it with someone who disagrees? I don't see a 10th amendment argument working, because the powers the Patriot Act exercises are ones that are enumerated for Congress in the Constitution (defining and punishing felonies, suppressing insurrections, making rules concerning captures on land and water). At least the Patriot Act is easier to see in the enumerated powers than tons and tons of laws that pass all the time and that Hostettler's on record being against. On habeas corpus, yeah it's in the Constitution, it's also in the Patriot Act. So are warrants. When warrantless wiretaps did come up for a vote, Hostettler voted against that. Judge Napolitano insists that the warrants issued by FISA courts aren't up to snuff with the 4th amendment because the FISA courts aren't judges (I presume he means judges in Article III courts), but the 4th amendment doesn't mention judges, and as far as I have been able to find out, FISA warrants do have everything the 4th amendment requires warrants to have. Napolitano also complains about how the PA allows evidence to be admissible in court that was formerly inadmissible. But the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about admissibility of evidence, and up until a court reinterpreted the 4th amendment in 1914, even evidence that had been gotten illegally was still admissible.

I agree about admissibility of evidence, inadmissibility was merely drawn from thin air because the court needed 'a remedy' it was more law in equity than Constitutional interpretation in devising the specific remedy. However, that doesn't render the violation not a violation. I think privacy (re: FISA) can be shown from history and rights of Englishmen. I'd have to actually research it, but I think it is there. Regarding habeus corpus and 'insurrections' I think that is pretty clearly 'insurrections sufficient to hamper the judicial system so hearings are impractical' not one nut off on his own. I agree it is hard to argue against someone who disagrees, but once they admit to the 9th amendment you can use history and custom. I think the 10th just means that while the people and the states have 'other powers', the federal government most certainly does not.

 

[TCE]

I would love to see Judge Napolitano debate anyone, game on!

 

[erowe1]

I agree about admissibility of evidence, inadmissibility was merely drawn from thin air because the court needed 'a remedy' it was more equitable law than Constitutional interpretation in devising the specific remedy. However, that doesn't render the violation not a violation. I think privacy (re: FISA) can be shown from history and rights of Englishmen. I'd have to actually research it, but I think it is there. Regarding habeus corpus and 'insurrections' I think that is pretty clearly 'insurrections sufficient to hamper the judicial system so hearings are impractical' not one nut off on his own. I agree it is hard to argue against someone who disagrees, but once they admit to the 9th amendment you can use history and custom. I think the 10th just means that while the people and the states have 'other powers', the federal government most certainly does not.

I agree about violations still being violations. If you don't follow the inadmissibility route that Napolitano does, you still have to do something to prevent and punish violations of the 4th amendment. But even still, if FISA warrants include probable cause, are supported by oath or affirmation, describe the place to be searched, and describe the persons or things to be seized, then they meet the requirements of the 4th amendment. I don't think you're right that common law understanding of warrants would require them to be issued by an Article III court. Wasn't the consitutional separation of powers was too much of an innovation to have much common law precedent? Warrants in colonial days could be issued by the king and law enforcement entities. So I don't think the word "warrant" all by itself apart from later case law could exclude warrants issued by FISA courts that meet the criteria of the 4th amendment from being legal warrants.

On habeas corpus, I wasn't referring to Congress's power to suspend it according to Article I, Section 9. I was referring to the Patriot Act including provisions for habeas corpus for detainees. Again, those provisions may not be up to snuff ethically, but they're in there.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Every time I saw a news reference (FOX, CNN, etc.) to this debate, they called Hostettler the "establishment" candidate (same with Coats). Not sure why they kept saying that.

 

[TCE]

Every time I saw a news reference (FOX, CNN, etc.) to this debate, they called Hostettler the "establishment" candidate (same with Coats). Not sure why they kept saying that.

Dan Coats is the establishment candidate. He was drafted by the NRSC to challenge Hostettler. He doesn't even live in Indiana.

 

[erowe1]

Every time I saw a news reference (FOX, CNN, etc.) to this debate, they called Hostettler the "establishment" candidate (same with Coats). Not sure why they kept saying that.

Really? Wow, that couldn't be further from the truth. I have heard tea party types call him "establishment" before just because they were saying that they wanted to support someone who have never been in office before. But nobody who knows anything about the inner workings of the Indiana GOP could call Hostettler "establishment." In fact, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose that the establishment pulled Coats out of retirement more because they didn't want to deal with Hostettler in office than anything else.

Jim Bopp, the RNC guy who spearheaded the behind-the-scenes efforts to get Coats to run, after Pence decided not to and a Rasmussen poll was already showing Hostettler neck-and-neck with Bayh, was the same guy who orchestrated the last minute change of rules for the Indiana 2008 GOP convention to prevent Ron Paul supporters from having any say on selection of national convention delegates.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Really? Wow, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Yeah, I thought it was strange. I would guess it had to do with his prior years in Congress. They also called him a "Washington insider" for that reason. Probably an attempt by the media to marginalize him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Dan Coats is the establishment candidate.

No doubt about that.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Can we get a sub-forum for Hostettler yet?