He has filed candidacy papers with the Indiana Secretary of State, which will officially place his name on the ballot. Dr. Chris is running against Republican Jim Banks, the incumbent representative for Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District.

Dr. Chris is a fourth-generation Hoosier who lives in Warsaw, Indiana and has been a board-certified gastroenterologist for 37 years. He’s also a constitutionalist whose platform consists of protecting all citizen liberties, preventing government overreach, and preserving state sovereignty. 

Dr. Chris is committed to upholding the Constitution, securing our borders, defending the Second Amendment, protecting all life, and curing the afflictions plaguing our federal government.

If elected as Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District representative, Dr. Chris will constitutionally legislate, not delegate, so you won’t have to litigate to reclaim your God-given, natural rights and liberties.

###

To learn more about Dr. Chris, please visit his website at drchrismagiera.com and his Facebook page at facebook.com/drchrismagieraforcongress. You can also donate to Dr. Chris’s campaign at drchrismagiera.com/contribute-dr-chris-magiera.

The post Dr. Chris Magiera Files for Candidacy in Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District appeared first on Dr. Chris Magiera.

If you put yourself back in 1789, the intent and understanding of the framers and ratifiers become abundantly clear.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second half of the sentence was not a subject of much debate at the conventions, as the right to keep and bear arms was part of the God-given, unalienable, natural rights of defending one’s life, liberty, and property.

What WAS controversial at the time was the subject of the peacetime militia. The founders and framers intensely distrusted standing armies, as they had just defeated one. They knew their history and often made statements citing that tyranny was likely to arise when the people were disarmed.

The well-regulated (meaning well-drilled and skilled) militia was found to be vital to the security of a free state.

Who are the militia? Founder and ratifier George Mason stated:  “They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

Look also to the Militia Acts of 1792. These Acts specified that the militia was “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be age of 18 years, and under age of 45 years.” With the adoption of Amendments 13 and 14, the modern Militia is even more broadly representative of “the whole people.”

And the Acts specified military-grade armaments. Also, those military-grade armaments were considered so essential that they were “exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales for debt or for the payment of taxes.” How did that law disappear? We need it now.

What does this all mean? Well, it means that all federal firearms regulations are unconstitutional, as well as the “F” in the “ATF.” The Second Amendment negates any Commerce Clause arguments for regulation.

Now, the clever readers will point out that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws, but not to the powers of the states through their constitutions. And yes, that is correct, maybe. Enter the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment. Under the “Incorporation Doctrine” of the 14th Amendment, its clauses are felt to supercede State laws.

Similarly, Red Flag Laws and the TAPS Act are unconstitutional in so many ways. They engage in violations of Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14.

And what about the Supreme Court? According to Article 3, the federal courts render opinions. They do not make laws. Congress alone makes laws. However, since 1833, the Supreme Court has promulgated the falsehood of judicial superiority. Oligarchy by nine unelected officials in black robes threatens our Liberty. Justices serve only during periods of “good behavior.” Violating the Constitution is definitely not “good behavior,” and there are Congressional remedies for that problem.

Why should a totally fabricated “right” like abortion be immune from infringement, and the clearly specified second amendment rights be subject to infringement? This is conflicting logic.

I support the abundant clarity of the Second Amendment. I support the Constitution Solution. It is the sworn duty of every member of Congress to hold constitutionality over utility. Anyone who does not should immediately resign their office.

The post The Constitution Solution: Second Amendment Rights appeared first on Dr. Chris Magiera.

This crisis is due in large part to a failure of Congress to exercise some of its enumerated powers. 

Open access migration has a number of dangers for our Union, including the unwanted introduction of disease and violence (criminal and terrorist), depletion of resources, and depression of jobs and wages for citizens and legal residents. 

However, as with many political issues, things are not really what they appear to be. The root cause is not immigration but control and cultural change. The current agenda of today’s Progressives and Globalists is to destroy American exceptionalism and culture by flooding the union with people that do not share our culture and values, and to do it with such rapidity as to prevent the necessary assimilation which previously resulted in a prosperous “Melting Pot” effect.

It is truly a crisis. There is, however, a Constitution Solution. The problems are separate but related: immigration and naturalization. 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution clearly states that “Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization…” To turn off the “magnet” that draws uninvited migrants, Congress needs to rewrite the naturalization laws to make the rules very specific, with significant negative reinforcement for violations. For example, it could be stated that citizenship or legal residence status could only be granted if very specific protocols were followed with respect to visa acquisition and Port of Entry rules. Violators would never be eligible for legal status or citizenship if the protocols were not strictly followed. There would be immediate deportation, and no more catch and release. The category of Asylum has been so abused as to render its further use obsolete.

Why did the framers include naturalization in the enumerated powers of Congress? It was because, in the period from Independence to constitutional ratification, there was such discord among the States as to the definition of citizenship. Centralization of that power was felt to be the only answer.

What about immigration? Clause 4 uses no such word. It must be assumed, following the dictates of the 10th Amendment, that immigration is a power reserved to the individual States. Constitution scholars actively argue on both sides of this issue. Some maintain that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, the so-called “Migration and importation of persons” Clause, prohibits Congress from regulating such activity prior to 1808.  Others, including Madison (who actually composed most of the document), expounded in Federalist 42, that the clause was a euphemism for slavery, and that it was not meant to “prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 specified that “ Congress shall have power to define and punish offenses against the law of Nations.” The framers had great reference for certain philosophers, and one work they often cited was the “Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel (1758). An exhaustive reference, it mentions the duties and responsibilities of sovereigns toward citizens, immigrants, and travelers. This would imply an argument in favor of Congressional input on immigration. Vattel also had much to say about birthright citizenship. Citizenship, he maintained, followed the parents, not the soil.

If taken literally, the existence of 50 separate immigration policies could lead to such discord and friction as to literally threaten the existence of our Union. However, members of Congress need to keep in mind that their prime directive is to judge legislation not on its utility, but rather on its constitutionality. What is easy, convenient, and popular is not always the correct decision.

It will take wisdom and virtue on the part of Congressional members to thread this very fine needle. It may require a Constitutional amendment to add the word “immigration” to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

Lastly, what about “The Wall”? That is, actually, not much of an issue. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states that “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations…”  So, if Congress authorizes a wall and appropriates funds for its construction, then the executive is to see that it is built. This would be for the purpose of regulation of commerce with foreign Nations. Congress must protect the Union and its citizens and do its job! If Congress is not doing its job, then it is a time for change.

The post The Constitution Solution: Immigration & Naturalization appeared first on Dr. Chris Magiera.

The goal of the Constitutional Grassroots Movement is to “get Constitutionally sound candidates elected, regardless of party.” The bipartisan group supports the rights to life, liberty, property ownership, freedom of peaceful religion, gun ownership, and freedom of speech. The Constitutional Grassroots Movement only endorses those candidates who they feel are most likely to uphold the Constitution.

Dr. Chris is a fourth-generation Hoosier who lives in Warsaw, Indiana and has been a board-certified gastroenterologist for 37 years. He’s also a constitutionalist whose platform consists of protecting all citizen liberties, preventing government overreach, and preserving state sovereignty. 

Dr. Chris is committed to upholding the Constitution, securing our borders, defending the Second Amendment, protecting all life, and curing the afflictions plaguing our federal government.

If elected as Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District representative, Dr. Chris will constitutionally legislate, not delegate, so you won’t have to litigate to reclaim your God-given, natural rights and liberties.

###

To see Dr. Chris’s official endorsement from the Constitutional Grassroots Movement’s, please visit constitutionalgrassrootsmovement.org/dr-chris-magiera.

To learn more about Dr. Chris, please visit his website at drchrismagiera.com and his Facebook page at facebook.com/drchrismagieraforcongress. You can also donate to Dr. Chris’s campaign at drchrismagiera.com/contribute-dr-chris-magiera.

The post Dr. Chris Magiera Receives Constitutional Grassroots Movement Endorsement appeared first on Dr. Chris Magiera.

Life is a continuum, from conception to birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, aging, and natural death. All of us are created in God’s image. Life has always been considered the first of the unalienable, God-given, natural rights. Some individuals, through misfortune or accident, are more vulnerable and require extra care. They are still in God’s image and deserve our protection.

Over the last 120 years, the Progressive Movement has viewed the situation differently. In the Progressive worldview, a right to life is dictated by moral relativism and is prioritized by the ability of an individual to contribute to society as a whole. This Progressive philosophy is morally bankrupt and repugnant.

If elected to Congress, my duty would be to repudiate the Secular Progressive agenda at every turn, and to restore the principles of the Constitution to our government. For example, our Republic is based upon the theory that the central government only has a few limited, defined powers. 

Nowhere in these powers do you find any mention of abortion, medical care, or medical procedures. Nowhere.

Under the Tenth Amendment, those powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

With its judicial activism, the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally. This and similar opinions constitute” bad behavior” on the part of the justices and, there are constitutional Congressional and Executive remedies for such bad behavior.

So, does this mean that protecting all human life at any and all stages is only a state prerogative? Well, the answer is yes and no.

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments state that “no person shall be… deprived of life… without due process of law.” The Incorporation Doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment would imply that the states also must follow due process in this situation.

The key here is the definition of personhood. If personhood begins at conception, then Roe collapses. In the115th Congress, Senator Rand Paul proposed S 231, “The Life at Conception Act of 2017.” It never made it out of committee.

Perhaps a more certain approach would be a constitutional amendment defining life at conception. Guidance for the wording could come from other amendments already in place. The founders were very careful with their words. An amendment like this might need to be phrased along the lines of, “The right of citizens of the United States to life and due process cannot be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of being conceived but not yet born.” 

The post The Constitution Solution: Protecting All Human Life appeared first on Dr. Chris Magiera.