In a sign of the strength the Tea Party and its supporters, House Republicans will be requiring legislators to cite the Constitution with every proposed law. When the GOP-controlled House convenes for the first time on January 5, legislators will read the Constitution aloud and then require all bills to cite the constitutional authority to enact any given law.

But whether such flourishes will engender real legislative changes or simply offer window dressing is up for debate. “I think it’s entirely cosmetic,” said Kevin Gutzman, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University and a conservative libertarian who sympathizes with the Tea Party. “This is the way the establishment handles grassroots movements. They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant. And then once they’ve humored them and those people go away, it’s right back to business as usual.”

The House Historian’s Office has no record of the Constitution being read aloud on the House floor. It’s estimated that the document, which is more than 4500 words long, and which has 27 amendments, will take about one hour to read aloud. Probably the best hour Congress has spent in quite a while.

As we head into the New Year, it’s an excellent time to get involved with the Republican Liberty Caucus and other grassroots Tea Party groups across the country.

(I guess it’s about time I set down this bit of history. In the context of the Net Neutrality debate it seems like something which ought to be made public, and as the youngest participant in these events I may eventually become the last surviving eyewitness. Photo to right is me in 1979 with hair and everything.)

In 1979 I was a junior at Franklin and Marshall College. I was also a fledgling Science Fiction writer with several professionally published stories, a libertarian activist who had worked on a couple of campaigns and formed a chapter of Students of a Libertarian Society and also what passed for a hacker in those early days of computers. Somehow that summer I lucked into the perfect internship in Washington, DC. Because I attended the right high school and with some pull from my mother, who worked for Senator Mac Mathias, I got an internship as a writer and editor for What’s Next newsletter published by the Congressional Clearing House on the Future, which was largely under the oversight of a dynamic young Congressman named Al Gore.

Gore and I had both attended St. Albans School in DC, about 10 years apart. At that point he was in his second term in the House of Representatives and he had decided that his way to make a mark was to become the leading Congressional voice for the emerging world of high tech. The Congressional Clearing House on the Future was his vehicle for doing this. It basically brought in information from the frontiers of science, analyzed it and put it into a form where busy politicians could figure out what to think about it. My job was to do research and write introductory articles on a wide variety of topics, including satellites, solar energy, microwaves, charged particle beam weapons, space exploration and research, and the frontiers of computers and communications. I was good at taking technical topics and summarizing them for a more general audience and got lots of practice at it while I was with the CCF.

As a lowly intern I really had very little direct contact with Congressman Gore. He did call on the phone a few times and I got to field a couple of technical questions in areas where I had some expertise. Apparently somewhere along the way someone must have passed on to him that I knew more about computers than anyone else on staff and I guess I had proved pretty adept at using LexisNexis (one of the very first major online databases) for research, plus I had a background in computer typesetting. So I got pegged to do a lot of work relating to a series of meetings called the Chautauquas for Congress sponsored by CCF and Rep. Gore. These meetings had begun in March and I came in towards the end. They brought together experts from private industry, government, the military, academia and the press to discuss emerging aspects of technology. One of those was computers and communications, and it was the results of that meeting which gave Al Gore some claim to having invented the internet, though to be fair his role in sponsoring the chautauquas was more that of a facilitator who brought the work of many inventors together than that of an actual inventor.

The primary session on computers and telecommunication had taken place in March and I didn’t get to CCF until May, but I got to be involved in the processing of reports from the meetings so I was one of the first people to see the very speculative early proposals for what would become the internet and I got to work at the later sessions, including the June meeting where final reports on various topics were presented. Admittedly, my role at those sessions was mostly to make sure chairs and tables were set up and that snacks were on hand, but I had also gone through the reports and helped prepare summaries of some very interesting discussions, and I got to stand in the back and hear the presentations.

It was the initial panel discussions at the Chautauquas which had led to the first consensus on what would emerge not long afterward as the fledgling internet. The ideas developed there would soon be implemented and the result was a shared network which first became accessible to a rapidly growing segment of the public in the form of Usenet in the early 1980s. It was that concept, of adopting common protocols to bring together existing private and government networks which created the internet as we know it and for which Al Gore has taken credit with some justification, as the point man on bringing all these experts together through these Chautauquas. I guess I can take some small credit to for helping the process along. Looking back at what was discussed at the time it surprises me how perceptive many of the participants were about the implications of technology which was really only just beginning to emerge and also how quickly the ideas were put into action. Usenet first went online by the end of that year.

Although, as a libertarian, I am chronically skeptical of the efforts of government, this experience was one which demonstrated how positive the role of government can be when it is primarily a passive and not an activist role. All the Chautauquas did was to bring people together to share information. There were no official conclusions, no real legislative outcome, no government initiatives to create the internet, just a promotion of ideas and innovation coordinated from a position of governmental neutrality. It did informally give the stamp of approval to government agencies and even the military in opening up their networks and sharing technology, but what it did not do was lay out rules and regulations, though Gore did eventually author legislation formalizing some of the relaxation of access required. The technical and administrative aspects of the internet were left to develop naturally.

Since that time this has pretty much been the rule of the internet. It’s the wild west. Everyone does what they want to do and no one, including the government, looks at it too closely. The benefits it has produced are enormous. It’s the great revolutionary development of its time on a par with the train and the automobile. It seems almost crazy to do anything which might interfere with it. For a government it might even be a terribly dangerous thing to attempt.

Yet today we see government attempting to get more heavily involved. With the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act we’ve seen government working as a hired thug for corporate interests attempting to control dissemination of data through high-speed transfer portals like BitTorrent. Congress is considering even more draconian legislation to control internet content in Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) very broad Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. And most recently the FCC has weighed in with its attempt to impose “net neutrality”, ostensibly to protect the interests of citizens, but with the potential to make the government the arbiter of bandwidth allocation and from there of every aspect of access and functionality on the net. Further legislation and further regulation from the FCC is expected and increasingly the focus seems to be shifting to regulating content itself. This carries disturbing implications for free speech in the medium which has become the dominant outlet for public speech in the world.

When the internet was created, this level of government involvement was never the intent. The conclusion coming out of the Chautauquas was that great things would happen if we opened up the netwroks and lifted restrictions and let the people have free and unfettered access to this kind of network, even if at the time we could barely conceive of what it would become. And the cornerstone of the internet as it was created was neutrality. Not as imposed by the government to try to level the playing field according to some contrived criteria, but as it developed naturally by not restricting access and opportunity. That hands-off approach is the definition of true net neutrality.

When asked what role government should play in this process, Professor Manley Irwin, who was on the Panel on Information and Communication commented “The single most important action Congress can take is to get out of the way.” That approach worked brilliantly for 30 years and has brought us incalculable benefits. What justification is there for changing it now?

Despite the fact that over 70 Representatives were not present in Congress to vote, December 21 was a terrible day for advocates of individual liberty and limited government.

First, the Federal Communications Commission’s 3 Democrat majority voted to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency. The proposal — misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure “net neutrality” by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet — was introduced a year ago by Obama’s appointed FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.

A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year. The FCC, an unelected bureaucracy, still has not released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet.

You better believe that this unconstitutional power grab to secure “net neutrality” by the FCC is just a small sign of whats to come in the realm of federal regulation of private citizen behavior.

And, on that note, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate both passed the so-called Food Safety and Modernization Act — the largest government power grab as it relates to food since 1938 (when Congress gave the FDA the authority to oversee the safety of food, drugs and cosmetics).

But, have no fear, it will only cost $1.4 billion to implement the new “safety” regulations.

The law will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the FDA tremendous control over the U.S. food supply. It also puts all food and all U.S. farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. The bill includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. And it will allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs.

Not only did 74 members of Congress fail to vote on the measure, but the bill also passed the Senate without a single dissenter. Fortunately, the new Congress will be in session soon, where I have no doubt there would have been someone with the courage to hold up this anti-liberty legislation.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the repeal of the military ban on gays in the military, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” My previous post explains today’s events in which the Senate passed the measure.

What has not been widely reported is that Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board members Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dr. Ron Paul of Texas both voted to repeal the discriminatory policy: see the House Roll Call on the bill.

The only other libertarian-leaning Republicans who voted to repeal “Don’t Ask” were U.S. Rep. John Campbell of California and U.S. Senator John Ensign of Nevada. All of the other Republican votes were from the moderate wing of the party.

Earlier this year, Dr. Cliff Thies released the RLC’s 2009 Liberty Index, in which Jeff Flake and Ron Paul topped the chart with the #1 and #2 scores, respectively.

An excellent vote from some great pro-liberty leaders!

On Saturday, January 15 at the Ramada Celebration Resort & Conference Center in Kissimmee, FL, members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida and other interested parties will gather for the biennial RLCFL Convention. The day will begin with meetings and reports from leadership around the state, culminating in the Annual Meeting and election of new officers. Once all of the work is finished, the Gala will occur at 7pm.

In addition to electing new leadership for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida, delegates will also hear from Republican State Senate President Mike Haridopolos. Senate President Haridopolos announced in November that he would live up to his promise to push TABOR in the 2011 session. He said he will explain the TABOR idea as he envisions it, discuss his strategy for implementing it in 2011, its prospects in the current political environment and how the RLC can help make it happen.

To register for the convention, click here. To become a candidate for a seat on the RLCFL state board, click here. See you in Orlando!

The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) works from within the Republican Party to return the party to its Jeffersonian roots. The RLC seeks to restore liberty, not restrict it; shrink government, not expand it; reduce taxes, not raise them; abolish programs, not create them; promote the freedom and independence of citizens, not the interference of government in their lives; and observe the limited, enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.

Senator Haridopolos (pictured) first addressed the RLC at our 2006 National Convention in Orlando, Florida.

Today the U.S. Senate voted on legislation that will allow for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar version of the bill and President Obama has said that he will sign DADT repeal into law.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the stand-alone repeal bill in the Senate. DADT was made a law seventeen years ago and is the only U.S. law that punishes people for simply telling the truth. Since the law went into effect, over 14,000 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged from our nation’s military simply because they were gay or lesbian. An estimated 66,000 gays and lesbians are currently on active-duty. Twenty-three studies over the past fifty years, including most recently a comprehensive study by the Pentagon, have concluded the same thing: that there would be no to minimal impact on force cohesion or unit readiness by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military. Thirty-countries currently allow gays and lesbians to serve in their nation’s armed forces.

The repeal of DADT will happen only after certification by the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that policies have been written to implement repeal and compliance with these polices is consistent with military readiness. According to the Human Rights Campaign, DADT is not effective immediately and service members are still at risk of being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation until certification occurs and an additional 60 days have passed.

Of the sitting Senators, the only past RLC-endorsed Senator who cast a vote in favor of repealing DADT was Senator John Ensign of Nevada. (Other moderate Republican Senators like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe also supported the repeal.)

On behalf of basic fairness and equal rights under the law, I applaud Congress for taking this important step.

Restricting the national conversation to tax cuts effectively prevents any real fiscal reform from ever happening on Capitol Hill. That’s because cutting taxes without cutting spending isn’t really cutting taxes at all. It’s deferring taxes to the future.

Imagine yourself in financial trouble, worrying over how much of your expenses you should pay with cash and how much you should pay with credit cards, but you never even consider reducing your expenses. The “debate” over tax cuts in recent months is about that absurd.

Please find out why by reading the rest of my article at CAIVN.

If you’re planning to attend the Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention in February, you should take advantage of the prices for airline tickets — which are entering a phase of low rates. And if you weren’t sure you could afford to attend, the low fares might be just what you need to fit the trip into your budget. From a few major cities the fares are so low you’ll have money left over to tip your TSA screener after you share an intimate encounter.

Right now all of the major airlines are running fares of $250 or less from any city in the United States to the Washington, DC area with flexible travel dates and plenty of availability. Some popular cities are even bigger bargains, however. With fares at $89 from Boston there’s no excuse for New England RLCers to miss the convention. The $149 promotion from Atlanta is hard to pass up too.

The base fare in the $200 to $250 range for most cities is a good start, but to find the really low promotional rates all you have to do is try all three of the airports in the DC area, which is easy to do on a website like Travelocity which will compare fares by airports and travel dates. And if there isn’t a super low fare from your city this week, keep trying ever few days because the promotions change and move around.

A small change in schedule can also make a big difference. Saturdays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are currently the discounted days, dropping the price by $30 or more for a round-trip ticket. The RLC convention is on Saturday the 12th. Come a couple of days early and attend CPAC. Go home a couple of days later and do some sightseeing or drop in to visit your favorite congressman.

The three airports within reasonable distance of the hotel are Reagan National Airport (DCA) which is only 7 miles away, Dulles International Airport (IAD) which is 20 miles away and Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) which is 40 miles away. The distance from desirable locations like the hotel hosting the RLC convention to some degree determines ticket prices, so the best price is most likely to be flying into BWI, though sometimes great specials show up at the other airports.

So find a great air fare and join us at the RLC National Convention on February 12th.

Health Care’s Individual Mandate Struck Down Thanks to RLC Endorsed Attorney General

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli did not have to battle on the issue of health care. He could have taken the easy path and simply focused on other issues. Instead he decided to put principle first and filed suit against the federal government’s individual mandate that forces Americans to purchase a product.

The Virginia legislature and the Tea Party also deserve credit because the Health Care Freedom Act they passed in anticipation of the Obama health law gave Cuccinelli grounds to file the suit.

Today U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual health insurance mandate “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of Congressional power” and it’s ultimately “about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia selected Attorney General Cuccinelli as its only statewide-endorsed candidate in 2009. He has demonstrated why through his continued efforts to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights.

In 2008, then-State Senator Cuccinelli addressed members of the RLC at a meeting in Fredricksburg, Virginia. You can hear his remarks here, here, here, and here.

Congressman Ron Paul, an advisory board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, announced last night that he will be named Chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee in Congress.

According to Paul, “The chairman of the financial services subcommittee, Spencer Bachus (R-AL), has told me today verbally that I will be the chairman of that subcommittee. He was the one who appointed me as the ranking member and he is sticking to his guns and that I will have responsibility of that committee.”

When asked about subpoenas and an audit of the Fed, Paul went on to say that he can issue subpoenas but would need agreement from the chairman as well as speaker.

Watch the clip from Judge Napolitano’s program at the FoxBusiness website.

The Republican Liberty Caucus gathered a coalition of supporters in a letter that was sent out earlier this week in support of Dr. Paul leading the subcommittee. The letter included former New Mexico Governor and Our America Initiative Chairman Gary Johnson.

With 2009 Liberty Index top scorer U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) being added to the Appropriations Committee earlier in the week, it has been a very good week for constitutionalists in Congress — even with some other very disappointing choices to lead other committees.