In my sixty-six years I have been witness to the diminishment of freedom and liberty in my state and my country. At the federal level we have statutes and even whole divisions of government never contemplated by the founders, much less authorized in the constitution’s Article I, section 8 defining the limited powers of the national government. Vermont has mirrored the federal excess.

Of even greater concern is the administration of our laws. Our attorney general is supposed to defend the state, but has not sued the federal government for assailing the health care programs our legislature has created. Worse yet, with some 80 attorneys scattered in every department of government, the equal access to justice is unbalanced with some civil offences taking priority over more serious matters. The progressive candidate wants greater enforcement and more regulation of the clean water and clean air acts, further reducing opportunities for jobs in Vermont as her backers in CLF desire. Particularly irksome is the republican candidate alleging I am not qualified for attorney general to LSC republicans. Sadly I was not invited to the publicly funded AG debate on VPR to refute the lie. Yet, he has only been in Vermont for three years and has far fewer legal degrees than I do and much less relevant experience. His is limited to a small corner of his duties as an assistant states attorney.

Vermont needs some fresh air in the attorney general’s office where too often political concerns have determined prosecutorial discretion.

With a BS in engineering, a license in many states as a PE, a masters in environmental law, a doctorate in law, a certificate in dispute resolution, and studies for an LLM in human rights and international law where I was on the law review, the republican candidate for attorney general has the nerve to call me unqualified to the college republicans at LSC. He is also the one who after promising to appear for the only televised debate on CCTV in Burlington, failed to appear so he could lie to students. In addition to all this I have a great deal of practical legal experience, arguing before the 2nd circuit and practicing in the international forum. Moreover, I have executive experience in and out of government, which is why I argue that I would bring the 80 AG’s into one office to better allocate resources. Additionally, I would join the many suits to overturn the federal health care bill which undermines the work of our legislature because it is a duty of the office. I certainly would not opt for greater enforcement and more law as the progressive seeks with her backers, the CLF.

There are few opportunities for voters to look at what is perceived as the down ticket office of attorney general, resulting in the continuation in office of someone who does not serve as a servant of the people. A great deal of explanation is needed to understand that the only statewide office not in the Vermont Constitution is in reality, perhaps the most powerful elected office in the state because prosecutorial discretion allows political considerations to intervene in the dispensing of justice. But I digress owing to my desire for substantial justice without procedural justice allowing a soft on crime regime to flower.

The video of the debate is below…

But before you spend the time to watch the whole thing, let me set the stage for you. The invitees were Progressive Charlotte Dennette, Liberty Union (now revealed to be socialist) Rosemarie Jackowski, Libertarian Karen Kerin, Democrat William Sorrell, and Republican Aaron Toscano. Jackowski did not attend, but sent a garbled statement that moderator Eli Harrington, program director from the Vermont Council on World Affairs, read for the viewers. Toscano, who had promised to attend, did not show up. I learned the next morning that he instead attended a college republican event. That left me facing the two big statists, Sorrell and Dennette.

Although it was not apparent due to the format, it is easy to dispose of CLF shill Dennette as a serious candidate because she ignores the US Constitution. She rants about the clean water act and the clean air act, neither of which are within the powers the constitution provides in Article I, Clause 8. While we all want clean air and water, it is clearly a matter for the states and the people who may be aggrieved by the actions of a particular property owner; and they have recourse legally in the courts.

Dean appointee and soft on crime Sorrell is equally easy to dispose of. Before delving into our differences legally, I must address his response to getting more bangs for the buck from his office as ridiculous in these economic times because he indicated a need for more staffing, while I made him cringe by proposing bringing all the attorneys general under one roof so allocation of resources could be more efficiently utilized. This demonstrates the difference between someone with real world management experience and a political appointee who has been there too long. At a cited cost of over $50,000.00 per year per prison bed, the question of defining non-violent offenders was sought as a question. Both of the liberals spoke about court diversion and other wishy-washy programs, when the Vermont constitution very clearly calls for “hard labor”. I pointed out that there are many tasks not being performed by the state that these offenders could be providing, and then needing only a dormitory to house them and feed them for their sentences, freeing the prisons for the violent and dangerous criminals.

Asked to explain why we were running under our party affiliation, I was stunned to hear Sorrell launch into his mother’s role in democrat politics, almost as if he does not share that party’s views. It is curious indeed that he has no better understanding. I explained that I am a libertarian because that most clearly represents what our founders of the nation and state embraced, liberty as long as it resulted in no harm to others and the dispensing of justice if harm results. Shockingly, Sorrell launched into his ideations concerning prevention, causing me to cringe in horror at the notion of offending the first amendment by making thoughts, words and actions wrongful in his eyes. God save us from such thinking. Other questions that we never got to would have led these two drones ever deeper into the statist swamp so it was fortunate for them we did not get there.

The summary statements were of the same ilk by the other two, but mine was laser like pointing out that Sorrell had been there too long and pointedly stating that his ideation of prevention is not law. I also chastised Dennette regarding VY, as I was fortunate enough to be one of the engineers on the project and fully understand that the reactor and its turbines are good for 100 years, despite the cooling towers leaking river water that is used to cool the process water that is in stainless steel piping to maintain the de-ionized water that is a must for the reactor system to not carry radioactivity. So VY is really very safe. The nonsense about having more hydro dams completely ignores both conservation and environmental concerns as it prevents migratory fish from making it back to their spawning grounds. I cited the loss of Atlantic salmon, shad, and at least one other species of fish that used to be found in abundance, but in declining numbers in the White River in my lifetime. Finally, I hammered Sorrell for claiming to protect families, when he has done nothing to protect children and the elderly. Apparently, they do not count as a part of the family, but not surprising since he had no response to the cyber crime problem that is defrauding the elderly without even the FBI caring because it emanates from outside the US. Please do watch the video.

Karen Kerin was interviewed by The Woodchuck Report’s Bonnie Scott.

Topics discussed include the office of Vermont attorney general, property rights, gun rights, healthcare, commerce clause, stare decisis, permits, government employee pay and more…

A government of, for and by the people threw off the nobility of the England, but the yoke has again been put on us by a mere union – the lawyers bar. And it is crystal clear when one considers that to be an appointed judge; one must first be a member of the bar for some years; the only importance of which is to learn the procedure that prevails today in place of sustenance. It even reaches to the U. S. Supreme Court. If you doubt it, consider the “commerce clause” that is the alleged source of authority for many statutes we detest. The commerce clause came about and was a driving force for the constitutional convention, because the states were trying to tax one another as was seen in the NY & NJ battles over ferrying rights.

Article III, section 2 of the constitution reads, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority…” Nothing in the constitution gives the courts the right to make law. That has not deterred the court from expanding on the commerce clause far beyond its original intent. For example, the Roosevelt administration enacted a law requiring an allocation from the Agricultural department for producing certain crops. In Wickard v. Filburn, the court not only did not hold the law unconstitutional, but instead ruled that the farmer, who was growing wheat on his own land for his own use had violated the law, because he was disturbing the “stream of commerce’’. The court has grown the commerce clause into the monster that has eaten our economy, spawning numerous laws that have no legitimacy under constitutional scrutiny. The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and even the Obamacare foray into single payer socialized medicine are but a few of the examples of statutes lacking constitutional authority, but claiming cover under the Supreme Court expansion of the commerce clause.

None of this could happen without the tacit approval of the bar. Despite their oath to protect and defend the constitution, lawyers have doggedly pursued court rulings as if they were law. Why? It makes their job a mystery to the laity because the laity does not have ready access to the court rulings. When one looks at the plain language of the constitution and when in doubt refers to the original intent that is easily obtained by asking for it at the library of congress, one realizes that the bar has hoodwinked the people. This is somewhat surprising because the law schools teach that “case law” is not law, but may be persuasive. To be persuasive it must be vey nearly congruent and one must accept the notion of “stare decisis”; the legal doctrine that says once decided a matter should not be upset. Is it any wonder that Shakespeare said, “First kill all the lawyers?” He was more prescient than more modern playwrights. He must turn in his grave reading legal briefs today that are larded with citations to case law, with rarely reference to the constitution that is in fact the supreme law of the land as stated in Article VI, clause 2 of the constitution.

Can we reverse this terrible state of affairs? While we still have the ballot, we can elect members of congress who will pass legislation requiring the courts to adhere only to the plain language of the constitution and the original intent of the founders. Congress can also specifically overturn the commerce clause beyond the original purpose of preventing the states from taxing each other. Indeed, if the commerce clause is restored to its original purpose, we could buy health insurance in any state, increase competition, enhance the free market and save people countless dollars. But the bottom line is the voters need to wake up and put the fifth column in its place by voting for people who will support the constitution.

Never before in the history of the republic, has anything as egregious as the appointment of a dictator of our medical care occurred. Alas, the grinding efforts of the current administration have come almost full circle with the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency charged with implementing Obama care’s socialized medicine. Not one hearing before the Senate for confirmation was held, nor was any even scheduled. Yet, we now have a literal dictator that has praised England’s socialized health care system. (Note: I have had first hand experience with that system and it is truly frightening in its sweep of non-care. I was, under objection, given what was reportedly a physical consisting of my blood pressure, my temperature, weight, height and my medical history. That is far from my annual physical in this country and far from discerning any possible problems for early intervention.)

Under Obama care, there is supposed to be a 50% reduction in Medicare, shifting costs to Medicaid. How many of us can afford such a reduction in medical care? I am 66 years old and have private insurance that likely will go away as cost shifting makes my insurance unaffordable. Will you fare any better? We should all be complaining loudly to congress. While it likely will fall on deaf ears, please consider the fall back position and elect me as the Vermont Attorney General so I can sue to end this travesty along with the many other states doing so.

I need your support and your contributions so I can counter the media that favors socialized medicine. Contributions are very limited in Vermont to a maximum of $400.00, but I am far more interested in many small contributions. My web site, www.karenkerin.com, lists various ways you can help and contribute. Please help me help stop this destruction of the insurance we were compelled to pay for before we are cheated again. Please tell yours friends, neighbors and relatives of the horror that we face.