Dear Candidate:

Our nation’s founders thought that the greatest distinction between our government and those of the rest of the world was that we would have “a government of laws, and not of men”.  But we have since devolved into a government both “of men” and of party, where seizing power is the real goal, and the honorable paradigm of abiding strictly by the Constitution as a sincere public servant is now considered ridiculous.

The Rule of Law Restoration is dedicated to promoting the stunningly-simple idea that government ought not be allowed to operate above the law.  No matter one’s opinion of the Constitution or the City Charter, government must follow the law strictly until it is lawfully changed in the prescribed manner.  To do otherwise is to exert tyranny.

The Rule of Law Restoration has published pledges for candidates, whereby they promise to abide strictly by the law, and to make the most of their checks and balances powers to force the rest of the government to do the same.  Meanwhile, voters are encouraged to pledge never to vote for any candidate who has not taken the Candidate’s Pledge.  In effect, this creates a bloc of voters who insist that the national priority must be the return of the Rule of Law to our governments.  It’s not about party; it’s about principle.  It’s not about “left” and “right”; it’s about being able to depend on government to abide by the law---whatever may be the current state of that law.

The Rule of Law Restoration does not endorse candidates; it simply provides an Internet venue in which candidates can take a stand for the Rule of Law on the record.  Be design, we are not affiliated with any party, special interest, corporate interest, labor union, or any other organization, whether religious or political.  In short, we are a wholly neutral philosophical movement in all respects, except for our insistence that the nation is at risk if it does not return to lawful governance.

If you believe that the Rule of Law is a fundamental “must” for our society’s well-being, and if you are willing to operate strictly within the limited powers of the office you are seeking, please take the appropriate Candidate’s Pledge today and encourage all your supporters to take the Voter’s Pledge.  As “simple” as this idea is, it represents a major paradigm shift for our nation.  Therefore, the need for real leadership has never been so great.

You may visit the site at:

ruleoflawrestoration . com  (The full web address was not included in an effort to keep this email out of your spam filter!)

Sincerely,

Jack Pelham

Founder

Rule of Law Restoration

PS.  There is no charge whatsoever for taking the Candidate’s Pledge.  

Dear Mr. Pelham,

The rule of law is central to my campaign philosophy as well as to the form of government which has provided us with such abundance and peace.

I invite you to read my website and count how many times I have referred to and cited the importance of this principle.

Alex Miller
Alex Miller for U.S. Senate
NevadaCan.com

Mr. Miller:

I’m glad you support the rule of law.  I hope you will consider taking the ROLR Candidate’s Pledge.

 Best wishes on your campaign.

 Jack Pelham

Dear Mr. Pelham,

All elected officials take the rule of law pledge when they swear to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Having seen how effectively that has influenced our incumbents, perhaps you will forgive me for not being a big believer in pledges.  I urge you to read over my website and see that such a pledge would be as redundant for me as the oath of office was meaningless to the incumbent. 

If you can recommend some part of your website that will contribute to the education of my readers without antagonizing them, I would consider adding a link to your site.  Keep in mind that I am appealing to fellow Democrats to retire a 30 year incumbent who doesn't represent us or work for our best interest but still has great influence with the wealthiest people in this state and by extension with the rank and file.

Thank you for your determined efforts to return representative government to our state.  I also am doing my part.

Alex Miller
Alex Miller for U.S. Senate
NevadaCan.com

Mr. Miller:

See my thoughts in red below, interspersed into your text.

Dear Mr. Pelham,

All elected officials take the rule of law pledge when they swear to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Yes, AFTER they have entered office on an entirely different platform from obeying the Constitution (in nearly EVERY case).Having seen how effectively that has influenced our incumbents, perhaps you will forgive me for not being a big believer in pledges. Hence, having them pledge BEFOREHAND, basing their campaigns on this very pledge.  The likelihood of sincerity, while not certain, is much higher than in the oath of office.   I urge you to read over my website and see that such a pledge would be as redundant for me as the oath of office was meaningless to the incumbent.  Signing the ROLR pledge is not merely a checklist item for a campaign; it is a participation in a growing brotherhood of political leaders who are united by virtue of their belief in the rule of law and by their willingness to lend their names in support of it.  Right now, there are 46 (in 30 days since we started inviting candidates).  When there are 4,600, however…and 46,000….then it will not be easy to dismiss this movement.

If you can recommend some part of your website that will contribute to the education of my readers without antagonizing them, I would consider adding a link to your site.  Antagonizing?   I looked this word up to be sure I understand what you are saying.  Here’s what I found:

to make hostile or unfriendly; make an enemy or antagonist of: His speech antagonized many voters.

I’ve not had anyone tell me that they think ROLR is antagonistic, so this comes as a surprise to me.  I’m very curious as to what it is that you think your constituents would find antagonistic about the site.

Mr. Miller:

You might have extended me the courtesy of asking my blessing before posting a heretofore private correspondence on your website.  Though I cannot perceive what it may be, I suppose you have calculated some advantage in doing so.

As to this line in your reply:

 “I will not obligate the office I seek to any third party by taking their pledges no matter whether I support them, as I do yours, or not. Therefore, I will not sign any third party pledges, including yours.” 

 …I find it puzzling that you are unwilling to obligate the office to constitutional obedience beforehand, even though you seem quite willing to do so upon inauguration. 
 
Further, it would seem that you find the ROLR to be an inappropriate entanglement for incumbents.  I wonder, therefore, why you are congratulating me on the effort.

The Rule of Law Restoration is, of course, neither an entity nor a “party”, and holds no sway over candidates beyond the text of the pledges, which they willingly sign.  Therefore, the “obligation” of which you write is without substance.

Either way, your reply is a puzzlement.

Jack Pelham

Dear Mr. Pelham,

The point of my campaign publishing 'private' conversations is to illustrate the type of openness that we as citizens wish to see in all of our government's activities.  The advantage I see in disclosing such correspondence is in the message it sends to our elected representatives.  We want open above board government, not back room special deals for 'connected' individuals.  In addition, the average voter will see that reasoned, coherent,  clear, and comprehensive answers can in fact be supplied by one running for office.  And seeing the clear and undeniable evidence that such is possible, the voters may advance upon the proposition that such is reasonable and so demand it of all elected officials, lest they be turned out.

This is not about your pledge or your website or you or I.  This is about returning representative government and the rule of law to Nevada.