LifePac.org 2013 Other Regional Office Survey
Candidate: John Burke
Position: Clark
County
Freeholder (District 2, Position 3)
A
CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE IN PUBLIC POLICY
1.
A consistent ethic of life (see
here, here and
here) focuses on the major life issues of
abortion, euthanasia, persistent poverty, unjust war,
capital punishment, the use of nuclear arms, violence,
racism and exploitation.
While these are nationally debated issues, there
are community manifestations of these that local
governments can address.
Will you as a regional government official do all
in your power and authority to implement public policies
and facilitate community action that further a
consistent respect for all human life?
In
the context of the office I am running for – Clark
County Freeholder –attempting to implement the
consistent ethic of life (as outlined in the first
paragraph here) as part of a proposed county charter
would not be prudent in my judgment.
Here’s why: (a) Given the skeptical attitude of
the Clark County electorate toward past efforts at a
home rule county charter, any charter provisions
perceived as pushing a particular partisan or religious
agenda would contribute to the failure of this effort as
well, (b) Given the posture of the Washington judiciary,
such an effort would likewise be nullified in the courts
(with nothing constructive likely to result from this).
However, since my campaign for Freeholder focuses on the
implementation of the right of initiative and referendum
in any proposed county charter, that mechanism could be
utilized to implement “pro-life” measures, so long as
the appropriate petition signature thresholds are
reached, and, then, the requisite majority of the voters
are persuaded to concur.
Of course, even if approved, such an initiative
would have to pass judicial review, where it could be
rejected for reasons which are either legally sound or
dubious (depending on the initiative’s own merits).
But – if the initiative were well-crafted and
passed by a majority of voters, court rejection of it
could then be properly regarded as ideologically driven.
Such an exercise would itself serve a valuable
political education for Clark
County
voters, which they could “apply” when these judges come
up for re-election.
ABORTION
2. Even dedicated proponents of
abortion acknowledge that life begins at conception.
What do you believe?
Does a unique human life begins at conception?
Yes,
I believe that a unique human life begins at
conception.
3. The 14th Amendment states "nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws." The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 1973,
stated that "if this suggestion of personhood is
established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,
for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed
specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
The Court regrettably concluded though that "we
need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines
of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to
arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in
the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position
to speculate as to the answer."
Do you believe that the right to life of the
unborn child is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Given that I believe that life begins at conception
(and, therefore, personhood), and the 14th Amendment
guarantees that persons cannot be legitimately deprived
of life (and, therefore, guarantees a right to life), it
is logically inescapable to me that the right to life of
the unborn would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
(Aside: This does not constitute an endorsement of all
jurisprudential uses to which the 14th Amendment is put
-- many of which I regard as dubious or mistaken.
Nor is it an endorsement of federal intervention
as the most politically practical way of protecting the
rights of the unborn, since efforts to achieve this in
states, or even localities, might be most effective.
For this to occur, of course, Roe v. Wade would
have to be done away with, either by the Supreme Court
itself, or by congressional action – as with passage of
The Sanctity of Life Act.)
4.
Is taking the life of a pre-born child through
abortion ever permissible?
Check all that apply:
_____ No, it's never permissible
___X__ Yes, to save mother's life
_____ Yes, in cases of rape or incest
_____ Yes, for physical deformity
_____ Yes,
for genetic predispositions
_____ Yes,
for gender
_____ Yes,
for race
_____
Yes, for economic hardship
_____ Yes,
to punish spouse
_____
Yes, it's always permissible
5. Do you support parental
notification and/or consent before a minor (under 18
years of age) could have an abortion? A judicial bypass
of parents would be allowed when necessary.
A 2013 poll commissioned by Human Life WA, found
Washington State voters are widely supportive of laws
requiring "parental involvement" in abortion decisions
for girls under the age of 18 (62-29% with just under
10% undecided).
Read a summary of the results here.
Do you support:
Notification?
Yes.
Consent?
Yes.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
6.
"Religious communities are the largest and
best-organized civil institutions in the world, claiming
the allegiance of billions across race, class, and
national divides. These communities have particular
cultural understandings, infrastructures, and resources
to get help where it is needed most" (World Conference
of Religions for Peace).
Southwest Washington has a broad range of religious
communities that contribute substantially to the welfare
of families, children, seniors, the homeless, sick, and
refugees.
They are a highly valued part of our community which
respects and defends human life at every stage.
Are you an active member in a church, synagogue,
temple, mosque or other religious assembly?
If so, you may state here where
at:
Religious communities can have many benefits, especially
when those involved are guided, and constrained, by
their religious ethic: worshiping God, and following a
faith’s teachings.
Unfortunately, too many religious followers can
behave as if God exists to worship them, and validate
their preferences. That impulse can cause religion to
devolve into a tool for rationalizing egoism, and
enhancing social prestige.
Such a gap between a professed creed and personal
convenience is particularly evident regarding the
“pro-life” issue:
Respect for the right to life is common to nearly
all faiths, yet is widely disregarded by many
self-declared adherents -- especially large numbers of
those involved with politics and the judiciary.
I am
not a member of any religious community.
My entire primary and secondary education was
nominally religious – under the auspices of a
denomination where the justification-making and
status-seeking noted above took precedence over anything
recognizable to me as a faith.
This experience, combined with my understanding
of philosophy, history, and what I see around me, has
lead me to: (a) a personal skepticism about the
existence of a transcendent moral order (i.e.,
Providence), and, (b) a personal conviction that (what I
take to be) the observable mayhem that results from that
absence needs to be resisted -- and constrained -- as
best we can.
Supporting the pro-life position is a part of that.
Since “power tends to corrupt”, seeking a minimal
politics is another aspect.
Telling the truth about what I believe is still
another.
FAITH-BASED AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIPS
7. The White House's Office of
Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships ensures that
religious and other community organizations are able to
compete on an equal footing for participation in Federal
programs without impairing the character of such
organizations and without diminishing the religious
freedom of those served.
Does the collaboration of government with
faith-based charitable works lawfully ensure fair
treatment of religious organizations, and is it good for
our communities?
So
long as this does not constitute a religious
establishment -- and there is no necessary reason why it
should -- I see no legitimate constitutional argument
against government support for religious/faith-based
charities.
However, as a matter of both principle and prudence, I
would prefer that religious/faith-based charities not
become dependent upon government support for their
activities.
As noted in my prior answer, power tends to corrupt, and
dependence upon its support can be likewise corrupting
(I think this understanding is much closer to Thomas
Jefferson’s intent when he coined the phrase “separation
of church and state” than how those words have been
twisted -- and corrupted – under modern jurisprudence).
QUALIFICATIONS
8. Please state your professional
experience, community involvement, education and other
qualifications for a port commission or other position.
I am
53 years old.
I am retired.
I have never held elective office -- although I
have been twice appointed as a Precinct Committee
Officer (PCO) by the Clark County Republican Party (for
Precinct # 695).
My
chief qualification for the office of Clark County
Freeholder (District 2, Position 3) is whatever
understanding about the issues involved -- and
seriousness about their importance -- that I am able to
demonstrate by campaigning for it.
Answering this questionnaire is a part of that.
9. You may state here any policy
positions you have in relation to the office you are
seeking:
I
campaign to become one of the fifteen (15) Clark County
Freeholders who, together, will write a proposed county
charter that will then be submitted to county voters for
their approval (and, if so approved, then adopted). The
focus of my campaign is to advocate for guaranteeing a
meaningful right of initiative and referendum is part of
any proposed county charter. These Initiative and
referendum powers should only be adopted with sufficient
safeguards to prevent their abuse. Specifically: (a)
petition signature requirements for ballot placement,
(b) a super-majority requirement for initiatives and
referendums which seek amendments to the county charter
itself.
This
is important because: (1) Since power tends to corrupt,
politicians tend to be corrupted by it. Guaranteeing a
meaningful right of Initiatives and referendums allows
people to check, and balance, the corrupting ambitions
of politicians, and the special interests which
influence them, (2) Implementing a super-majority
requirement (2/3?) for initiatives and referendums
seeking amendments to the county charter itself insures
there is a widespread consensus about the
appropriateness of any changes to these constitutional
"rules of the game" before they are implemented, (3)
Guaranteeing this right will itself encourage elected
representatives to be more responsive to the voters, who
will have recourse to initiative and referendum process
if politicians fail to offer adequate explanations
and/or redress , (4) For pro-life voters who believe
county government is not doing enough to protect this
most basic of rights can use initiative and referendums
to attempt to correct this situation. If they achieve
the requisite petition signature thresholds and
electoral majorities, they can then implement these
corrections (subject then to judicial review).
Finally, for those worrying that enabling the right of
initiatives and referendums might lead to government
expansionism, or cultural decay -- as out-of-staters
move to Clark County, and (supposedly) alter its
political character -- should remember that anyone who
lives in this county (be they long time residents, or
new-comers) have all implicitly decided that they would
prefer to live here, rather than in Portland (with its
well-earned reputation for high taxes and regulations,
and indifference toward "pro-life" issues). As a
consequence,
Clark
County will tend to have
an electorate more skeptical about expansive government,
and more affirming of "pro-life" outlooks, making county
initiatives and referendums an effective tool for
limiting governmental expansiveness, and more fully
protecting the right to life.
10. May LifePac post your returned
survey on our website?
Surveys are posted only with your permission.
You
have my permission to post my answers to this survey on
your website -- so long as they are not altered or
edited in any way, except to correct obvious
typographical errors that might be present herein.
Please give your campaign web address
if you have one:
Burke for Freeholder (District 2, Position 3)
People over Politicians
Contact John Burke at:
E-Mail:
BurkeForFreeholder@gmail.com
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/BurkeForFreeholder
Campaign Blog:
http://burkeforfreeholder.blogspot.com/
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/BurkeFreeholder
Phone (Home):
360-896-6004
Phone (Cell):
503-706-2464
