Hear from Dr. Chris Magiera on opponent Jim Banks’ voting record—and how it stacks up against the Constitution. Please see below for the transcript.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. There will be a Republican Party primary election in
May June of 2020, and it will feature me, as a primary challenger to the incumbent, Representative Jim Banks.
Why is this election important to you? Every day, the career politicians and the massive Administrative State that they support infringe upon your God-given Natural Rights and Liberties. The Founders created the Constitution in order to structure a central government whose ONLY purpose would be to SECURE these inalienable rights.
Almost from the beginning, there were distortions of the limited, enumerated powers of the federal government. However, these challenges became more intense with the advent, over 120 years ago, of the Progressive Movement. The Progressives felt that, because society had become so technologically advanced since 1787, the People would be incapable of governing themselves and would need to be shepherded by a cadre of elite technocrats. Their motto was “Feed, Sustain, and Direct.” And you know what? Their plan prevailed!
You need proof? Let me ask you some simple questions: How many of you out there think that the federal government is TOO BIG and EXPENSIVE? How many of you DISTRUST the federal government? How many of you FEAR the federal government? And, lastly and most unfortunately, how many of you feel DEPENDENT on the federal government? You see, it is late in the game, and the score is Government “1,” We the People “0.”
Please, do not despair. Resistance is NOT futile. There is a remedy, a “cure” if you will. And that “cure” is the Constitution. The massive Administrative State was only able to form because Congress, unconstitutionally, delegated its powers to the Executive Branch. So, following the Constitution 100% is the ONLY way to restore our natural rights and liberties. Again, it is the ONLY path forward.
This brings us back to the election. The voters of the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana will need to decide which candidate they TRUST to vote with the Constitution. Since I have never held elective office before, you must judge me based upon the wisdom and virtue gained over my 37-year medical career AND my pledge to ONLY legislate based upon original intent, understanding, and meaning of the Constitution. As for my opponent, he has a VOTING RECORD, which can be used to quantify his dedication to constitutional liberty.
For the 115th and 116th Congress sessions, I have read every roll call vote and examined every bill. But for the purpose of this discussion, it would be more revealing to examine the bills that actually became law. I have used two methods to assign constitutional adherence to each bill. One method was a regression analysis of voting patterns of the members, and the other was assigning constitutionality on the basis of my personal review of the bills. The two methods had an excellent concordance.
So, here is the data: In the 115th Congress (2017-2018, Republican majority in both chambers), there were 442 bills that became public law. Of those bills, 101 were renaming of federal facilities. Of the remaining 341 bills, 193 were passed without roll calls. That is, by voice vote, unanimous consent or without objection (should we tolerate anonymous laws?). That leaves 148 public laws with a traceable voting record. So, how did Jim Banks vote? Constitutionally or unconstitutionally? By using the most strict criteria in the regression analysis, that is, giving my opponent the benefit of EVERY doubt, the results show that he voted UNCONSTITUTIONALLY in 36.5% of the cases. Revealing.
Now, let’s move to the 116th Congress (2019-2020), and remember that the House is now under Democrat control. As of 11/22/19, there were only 70 public laws passed and signed. Subtracting the “renaming” bills and the “voice vote” bills, that leaves 21 laws to be examined for constitutionality. Again, using only the strictest criteria for constitutionality, and giving my opponent the benefit of every doubt, the results are unconstitutional voting in 42.9% of the bills. This would add up to a career average of 39.7% unconstitutional voting. For the sake of simplicity, let’s just round this to 40%.
So, you have to ask yourself, why would a Representative sworn to “support this Constitution” only vote to support it 60% of the time? I think that this represents a valid question to be raised. One of our Founders, James Otis Jr., said, in 1761, that people who oppose liberty do so for one of three reasons: “Guilt, malice, or folly.” In modern terms, this would translate to pragmatism, malice, or lack of constitutional knowledge. You must decide for yourself, into which category does my opponent fit?
As for myself, I am not now, nor will I ever be, a career politician. If elected to Congress as your Representative, I pledge to CONSTITUTIONALLY legislate, 100% of the time, not DELEGATE, so you won’t have to LITIGATE to reclaim your God-given Natural Rights and Liberties. In 2020, vote for The Constitution Solution. Vote for Dr. Chris Magiera for Congress. Thank you.