« Tuesday Open Thread | Main | Last Day to Submit Questions for Bob Beauprez »

Comments

Susan B

Thanks for participating. If Beauprez does run for governor, will you support him or Holtzman?

Mark Paschall

To Susan B,

I'm going to defer on that one but will keep you posted.

Gov'tmule

As a conservative, you often speak of the damage government and regulation can do to the economy and the civil liberties of our country. Do you think it is somewhat contradictory to talk that way, yet you have been "of government" for 11 years and counting?

Coloradem

Thanks again for participating!

Mr. Pascall, my parnter and I live in the 7th District, we have been together for 10 years and we are both male.

Please expain to me why you feel that we should not have the same legal protections and benefits as Rush Limbaugh has enjoyed with his 4 wives.

And then please explain to me how you would represent us in Congress should you decide to run.

Jake

You say you have formed an exploratory committee, have you raised any money? If so, how much? Who has endorsed you?

concerned

In 2006 their is thought that a amendment will be on the ballot that would define marriage as one man and one woman. If this is on the ballot in 06 would you support it. Also would your position change if the amendment included making it illegal to have civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples? Thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions today.

col.klink

Have you signed the military’s Standard Form 180? If not, will you agree to sign it so voters can see the documents involving your military service and specifically why you were discharged?

Mark Paschall

To Govtmule,
Prior to public service, I worked in the private sector starting in 1970.
I was told that you shouldn't complain about government if you're not willing to get involved. Seeking elected office is the epitome of involvement.
Regardless of your political position, I am an agent of change and there is a lot to be done.
Look, I have been and remain concerned about the survival of our REPUBLIC. Those whom we elect stand in the gap between an ever-expanding government and our unalienable, God given rights.

JeffcoGoper

Your current term as Treasurer is up in 2006. If you run, will you resign from your Treasurer's job, if not how will you run and work at the same time?

USATERMLIMITS

Will you pledge to limit yourself to 3 terms if elected?

gov'tmule

Don't you think the Founding Fathers had it right when they talked about the importance of giving your time to government, then returning to the private sector to contribute to the economy? When do you plan to return to the private sector?

Mark Paschall

To Coloradem:
You may be aware that I passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" here in Colorado in 2000.
The issue you bring forward is decidedly the purview of the States under the 10th & 14th Amendments.
I believe that the best public policy is to promote and support the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. There are many types of domestic relationships represented in our society. When I was in the financial planning business, legal instruments are available to secure your wishes from estate transfers to healthcare.

Regarding the second part of your question, I submit to you that your ability to direct and control your own destiny is better served with less government not more.

Mark Paschall

To Jake:
Timing is everything in running campaigns, I'll disclose that information at the appropriate time.

Ter Ducken

You really danced around that question about the pamphlets that you provided to jurors. Walter in Denver has a link to this story here: Bible Pamphlets

The pocket-sized booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept built upon since 1989 by politically conservative groups that argue juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.

"YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!" the booklet says. "As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY."


I would like to know why you thought it was okay to promote "jury nullification" on the basis that God's law is above the law of our legal system. I don't care if you paid for it yourself, because as an elected official you are always a representative of the office you were elected to serve. Do you truly believe that jurors do not have to follow our legal system?

Mark Paschall

To Concerned:
I think I answered most of your question in my answer to colordem. The 1st Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws that interfere with our right to associate with whomever.
We live in a society of dynamic vocabulary and static principles. The phrase "civil union" is problematic from a public policy perspective in its vagueness. How many domestic relationships that exist in our society could be legally interpreted as being protected as a "civil union?"

Steve-o

thanks for answering questions today. where do you stand on referendum C&D, and will you campaign for or against it?

rightwinger

If you only could change one thing, would it be to outlaw all abortion or replace the current tax code?

closetheborder

Do you think we should build a wall along the Mexican border similar to what the Israelis are doing in Gaza and the West Bank?

Mark Paschall

To col.klink:
NO!

Mark Paschall

To JeffcoGoper:
No! I will work and run as any other elected official or civil servant.

marshall

Can you please explain your position toward state rights in relation to issues like marriage and gun control?

Coloradem

To follow up, do you agree with the Supreme Court decision in invalidating state anti-sodomy laws, or do you believe that states should be able to imprison gays for engaging in such acts?

thinkin

If you decide to run for Congress, will you pledge to Support Life?

Mark Paschall

To Ter Ducken:
This one warrants more critique since you have posted and referenced opinions and media reports. My response will take the form of insertions in CAPS into the body of your statement/questions.

You really danced around that question about the pamphlets that you provided to jurors. [INCORRECT! THE CITIZEN RULE BOOK WAS MADE AVAILABLE, AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE WING ON THE 2ND FLOOR OF THE COUNTY BUILDING, TO THOSE VISITING THE "TAJ" DURING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNTY BUILDING. THIS WAS A CELEBRATION COMMEMORATING THE INFLUENCE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS PROMOTION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT. THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXPANDING POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY.] Walter in Denver has a link to this story here: Bible Pamphlets

The pocket-sized booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept built upon since 1989 by politically conservative groups that argue juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.

"YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!" the booklet says. "As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY." [THE DISTORTIONS AND VITRIOL SURROUNDING THIS STATEMENT BY MR. WHITTEN, ARE A WITNESS TO THE WILLINGNESS OF SOME TO EFFECTUALLY REWRITE BY INTERPRETATION THE HISTORY AND MEANING OF AUTHORS AND THEIR WORDS. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE PREAMBLE TO COLORADO'S CONSTITUTION CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTANCE OF AND AUTHORITY OF "THE CREATOR," "THE SUPREME RULER OF THE UNIVERSE" AS THE ONE TO WHOM WE WILL EVENTUALLY GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF OUR LIVES TO. HENCE, IT IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE HOW MR.WHITTEN WOULD DRAW THE PARALLEL OF PLENARY POWERS OF INDIVIDUALS (GRANTED BY "THEIR CREATOR") TO THE LIMITED, EXPRESS POWERS OF GOVERNMENT WHEN IT IS APPLIED TO DECISIONS BY A JURY. FURTHERMORE, "JURY NULLIFICATION" HAS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES, NOT AS SOME WOULD LEAD US TO BELIEVE, SINCE 1989! FOR PROOF OF THIS, JUST TAKE A LITTLE TRIP UP TO GILPIN COUNTY AND READ THE PLAQUE (PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, I MIGHT ADD) THAT STATES IN PART ". . . THAT NO JURY WOULD CONVICT A BOOTLEGGER . . ." IN GILPIN COUNTY DURING PROHIBITION. WHY? BECAUSE THEY, LIKE THE JURORS WHO SET ASIDE THE DIRECTIVES OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, BELIEVED THAT THE LAW WAS WRONG. AND THIS SPEAKS TO THE 2ND CHECK AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL TYRANNY AFFORDED TO "THE PEOPLE," NAMELY YOUR POWER AND RIGHT, AS A JUROR, TO VOTE "GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY." OUR FREEDOM AND OUR COMMITMENT TO PROMOTE A GOOD AND DECENT SOCIETY IS DEPENDENT UPON THIS CONCEPT OF CHECKING GOVERNMENTAL TYRANNY BY 1) THE VOTE AT THE BALLOT BOX, OF WHO WILL STAND IN THE GAP AND 2) OUR JUDGMENT OF AND FLESHING OUT OF THE LAW WHEN WE SIT AS A JUROR, IN JUDGMENT OF OUR NEIGHBOR.


I would like to know why you thought it was okay to promote "jury nullification" on the basis that God's law is above the law of our legal system. I don't care if you paid for it yourself, because as an elected official you are always a representative of the office you were elected to serve. Do you truly believe that jurors do not have to follow our legal system? [OUR JUROR'S ARE FOLLOWING OUR LEGAL SYSTEM BY SUBMITTING THEMSELVES TO BE SEATED ON A JURY! I SUBSCRIBE TO IT!]

Confused

So you believe that gay marriage should be up to individual states and you'd support banning it as it is a states right issue? Does this mean you OPPOSE President Bush's effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marraige as one man and one woman?

The comments to this entry are closed.