In this video, Dr. Chris discusses how he would have voted differently from his opponent, Representative Jim Banks. 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. I am challenging the incumbent, Representative Jim Banks, in the May 5, 2020 Republican primary election.
Every day, the career politicians and the massive Administrative State that they support infringe upon your God-given natural rights and liberties. In order to secure these rights, the Founders, acting through their States, created a constitutional, representative republic. Our Constitution, and the Laws and Treaties made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Article 6, Section 3 states that all government officers “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
As I travel the 3rd District spreading the message of my candidacy, I am often asked how I would vote differently from my opponent, the incumbent. That is a fair question, for which I have an answer.
In each two-year congressional session, there are approximately 1,200 roll call votes in the House of Representatives. I have read each and every roll call vote for the 115th Congress (2017-2018) and the first half of the 116th Congress (2019). That’s a lot of votes. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at votes on bills that passed both the House and Senate, and were signed by the President, to become law.
As you recall from a previous video, the members of Congress are very clever about passing laws with voice votes, so you can never truly trace how your member voted. That leaves us with a minority of bills that have a traceable vote record. And there is one other item to consider. In the 115th Congress, the Republicans held the majority in the House, but in the 116th Congress, the Democrats hold the majority. Consequently, the content of the bills passed by each Congress will be heavily influenced by the majority party. So, there may be a different implication on how a Republican may have voted in the 115th, when that party controlled both chambers and the presidency, as compared to the 116th, where the Democrats controlled the House, but the Senate and presidency remained in Republican hands. This is all very complicated, but it is important in the analysis of motivation.
Now, to get down to business. In the 115th Congress, there were 148 bills that became law, that have a traceable voting record. In 54 of those 148 laws (37 percent), I would have voted differently from my opponent. In 51 of those 54 cases (94 percent), the difference in my vote would have been because of the lack of constitutionality of the bill. In three of the 54 cases, the bills could have been considered constitutional, and my opposition would have been based upon policy differences. Included in those 54 bills were 11 budget bills. My opponent voted “yes” on those budget bills in 8/11 cases (73 percent). I, on the other hand, would have voted “no” on all of the budget bills, because each of them contained appropriations that were both excessive and unconstitutional. The madness of our out-of-control deficits and debt must come to a stop.
So, now, let’s move on to the 116th Congress. For 2019, there were 94 public laws passed and signed. But as I mentioned before, only 27 had traceable vote records. Of those cases, I would have voted differently from my opponent in 11 of 27 (41 percent). Of these 11 votes, 10 (91 percent) would have been on grounds that the bills were unconstitutional. Looking at the budget bills in the 116th, there have been 11 so far, and my opponent voted “yes” in four of the 11 cases (36 percent). Remember, these were horribly bloated, Democrat-crafted appropriations. I, on the other hand, would have voted “no” on all of the budget bills for the same constitutional and fiscal reasons stated earlier.
So, this brings us to some summary points on how I would vote differently from my opponent. Considering public laws signed in the 115th and 116th Congresses, the overall discordance between my “votes” and my opponent’s votes would be 37 percent, and the differences based upon constitutional considerations would be 35 percent.
Now, those of you with keen memories will be pointing out that in some other discussions, the “unconstitutional” voting rate of my opponent is cited at about 40 percent. Well, that is because there are 24 bills out there where I am not fully convinced of the “constitutional” vs “policy” differentiation. If all those were to be considered constitutional differences, then the total discordance for that criteria could be as high as 49 percent. So, for the simplicity of discussions in the campaign, I am going to cite the figure of 40 percent unconstitutional voting on the part of my opponent.
So, let’s wrap this up. These are significant numbers. Over a three-year period, I would have voted differently from my opponent on at least 65 bills that became law. And of those, over 90 percent of the disagreements would have been on constitutional grounds. Would you take your car to a mechanic who would only fix it 60 percent of the time? I think not.
Your God-given natural rights and liberties, and those of your children and grandchildren, and the millions yet unborn, are not trivialities to be tinkered with haphazardly. Deciding legislation made in pursuance of our constitutional republic requires wisdom and virtue. The Constitution must be followed 100 percent of the time, no less. It IS the sworn duty of every member of Congress.
If elected to the US House from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana, I pledge to constitutionally legislate, not delegate, so that you won’t have to litigate, to reclaim your God-given natural rights and liberties. In 2020, vote the Constitution Solution. Vote for Dr. Chris Magiera for Congress. Thank you.