The Duke Presidential Library - Charleston, South Carolina

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to welcome you here tonight. I had been contemplating when toying with the idea of running for President, of announcing on May 2nd, which would mark ten years since AHDuke99 joined the game. However I decided to move it up. That being said, I did want to come and pay tribute his legacy, especially considering that the last vote he cast for President was for me in October 2016.

For me, President Duke represents the confluence of two traditions in Atlasia. On the one hand, he is one of the original four founders of the Regional Protection Party and thus it should be partially credited to him for the kick starting of the Atlasian Regionalist movement and also the revival of the Atlasian right after a long period of irrelevance.

At the same time President Duke also became a champion of the reformist movement and tradition in this game and he took a lot of big risks in endorsing consolidation two years before the right was ready to embrace it. And while Adam can certainly claim to have been the muscle behind the eventual adoption of the Fourth Constitution, when it comes to idea of balance, the idea of compromise and the preservation of regionalist principles while still advancing the most substantial reform in the history of this game, I think it is clear that Duke was the spiritual force behind it. And of course Truman and Leinad were the ones fighting over the pencil to make it a reality...

Lastly and perhaps more importantly, he is my friend.

When running for President, I have had the privilege of interacting with over two-thirds of our  Presidential administrations, including many dedicated to reforms. I have seen them all run with the best of intentions, the noblest of ideals and in some cases some of the best ideas, but yet I have witnessed most everyone of them leave disappointed.

Reform is important, especially in my conservative philosophy and I frequently point out that Edmund Burke still held to his opinions regarding the American Colonies, Ireland and India, even while writing "Reflections" and making his transformation from "liberal reformer" (for the time) to the intellectual behind the first strain of Conservatism to embrace the gains of enlightenment, while acknowledging the dangers of excess and extremism.

Some things need to be changed to work better and more efficient. Some institutions need to be adapted not because their original purpose is being rejected, but to better institute said purpose. People are imperfect, prone to prejudicial thinking and bias, the effects of time has the ability of letting people realize their mistakes and to become better. The same is true for countries, especially a country such as ours founded on noble intentions, imperfect because man is imperfect and improved over time through reason and restraint. The principles reapplied to ever more people, as the country evolves towards a more fuller and truer realization of the notion that all people are born free and equal, with natural and unalienable rights.

I am not a conservative because I oppose reforms. I am conservative because I believe that reform should be guided by reason and restraint and pursued when necessary to make things work better or to better implement basic and fundamental principles. Among them are that all people are created equal with natural rights; that the majority should rule but be checked by reason and restraints against excess; that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; and that government that is best, is that government which is closest to people.

It is for these principles that as Federalists, we believe in equality and equality before the law, which in turn guides our innate drive to advance and protect the independent judiciary from partisan influence; that the House should be the People's House and elected in a means that best represents the majority of the people; That the Senate should be equal in power and representative of regional interests; That separation of powers is essential to avoid either Executive or Legislative tyranny; and most of all that regions should be given more responsibility over matters domestic in nature and attempts to weaken or curtail said responsibilities should be opposed.

I will support any reform that better protects the rights and freedoms of the people, either than the institutions listed above, or to the way in which the institutions listed above function. At the end of the day, government is a social contract constructed by the people to preserve and protect their natural rights, equality under the law and threats to security both foreign and domestic.

Therefore I will be open minded, I will listen and I will embrace reforms where necessity dictates it for these ends listed above, but I will never endanger the liberty, equality and freedoms presently enshrined in the constitution. I will never waver to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, never waver to resist the inexorable push towards centralization and centralized solutions, and never waver to promote equality under the law. I will not back down from a passionate or principled fight to protect the people, their lives, their freedom, their rights, their equality, their security in their homes and possessions and their safety from threats external and domestic.

This is my promise to you, This is why I am running to be your President and this is what you will get from me if I am so humbled to receive your votes in June.

Thank You and Dave Bless

[Poirot]

which in turn guides our innate drive to advance and protect the independent judiciary from partisan influence;

I would be very dubious about justices holding elected office.

I have long championed an independent judiciary, free of partisan, political and in general influences from the other branches. I have long discussed this in the context of the Dred Scott case where the President meddled with Supreme Court deliberations.

I fear justices would be inclined to rule based on what would get them votes for Congress.

You have spoken about independent judiciary for a long time but I learned it could mean different things to different people. I was surprised when you argued vigorously in defense of a Justice holding also the role of partu chair of a major party, that there was no problem of independence.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

which in turn guides our innate drive to advance and protect the independent judiciary from partisan influence;

I would be very dubious about justices holding elected office.

I have long championed an independent judiciary, free of partisan, political and in general influences from the other branches. I have long discussed this in the context of the Dred Scott case where the President meddled with Supreme Court deliberations.

I fear justices would be inclined to rule based on what would get them votes for Congress.

You have spoken about independent judiciary for a long time but I learned it could mean different things to different people. I was surprised when you argued vigorously in defense of a Justice holding also the role of partu chair of a major party, that there was no problem of independence.

My position wasn't that it would never be a problem, my position was that the presence or absence of such a problem was determined by the ability of the nominee in question to separate their roles responsibly and that if the nominee in question had a proven track record of having done so, it should carry greater weight. I had long been able to administer the Senate without partisan bias despite being Chairman of the RPP and then a few years later, of the Feds.

Partisanship in judicial office is a problem, but determining that based on absence or presence of a partisan office is not sufficient to determine whether or not a judge is going to be partisan for the simple reason that not every "partisan machine operator" holds an officially recognized position in their party. I would note your use of the word "de jure", throughout most all of the Labor's existence, defacto leadership was exercised by either Adam Griffin, Windjammer or both. This is despite a succession of "nominal and 'dejure' Chairmen". The problem is that you cannot enforce against defacto political operators because it is difficult to prove one is so and then it is a difficult to enforce.

Therefore to promote a standard, that would enforce against people with a proven track record of independence and separating of roles, while remaining toothless against those whose partisan positions are unofficial (and who in this scenario pose the biggest threat) was in my opinion a counterproductive approach that would harm the quality of the judiciary and benefit the very types that pose the most concerns. Two of our best justices in the past few years were official party leaders on some level and proved to be able to perform their roles independently, including most famously Oakvale as head of the TPP. And I can assure personally that a third Justice who never even got to rule on a case, certainly didn't let it corrupt or bias him.

The real threat to judicial independence and the ones that most concern me from a philosophical position is: when crusades are launched against the court by people who don't like the way the court has ruled, which is what happened in mid 2013, or when another branch like the Executive or legislature tries to force its will upon the court to achieve a desired objective. Lastly, whenever the debate about judicial reform comes up and talks of electing justices or judicial terms limits, each present great risks of unequal justice being applied to gain political favor on the part of a judge.

As to the debate your are citing, you are talking about a Justice who would be simultaneous serving in another branch of government, which is a direct risk of a separation of powers issue.