Our Vetting Process
The Roanoke Tea Party is primarily interested in the candidates’ record in upholding the Constitution of the United States. We are also interested in fiscal responsibility and limited government. We expect elected officials to uphold their Oath of Office, which states:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Swearing an Oath to God to represent your fellow citizens is a sacred trust that all represented officials must work diligently to uphold. When our representatives do not uphold their obligation to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, it is the duty of the people to hold them to account. We the people have failed in this task, and the Roanoke Tea Party is determined to do our part in holding our elected officials to account for their record in upholding their Oath of Office.
In Washington, it is admittedly difficult to uphold this oath. The powers that be consistently dishonor the very Constitution they take an Oath to defend and support. But the difficulty of fulfilling an oath, should not excuse our officials from their higher duty.
Since the majority of our members live in the 6th Congressional District. We will focus our vetting process on that race.
A few notes:
The Roanoke Tea Party is not endorsing any candidate for Federal office, but offers this analysis as a service to our members and the community at large, so they can make an informed decision in November.
Voting is a personal business. Many citizens are moved to vote on other issues beyond the Constitutional and fiscal issues that the Roanoke Tea Party focuses on. Here is a link that will allow you to look at how other groups have rated the candidates on these issues.
Incumbent or challenger with a public voting record:
We will give a brief synopsis of the incumbent’s background and the highlights/lowlights of their term of office. We will provide any examples that demonstrate a violation of the incumbent’s Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution.
Our rating system is as follows:
Epic Fail: Violations so egregious to have lost all public trust. They should be removed from office immediately.
Failure with some hope of redemption: The Candidate has violated their Oath of Office, but generally supports Constitutional issues and fiscal responsibility. While violating their Oath of Office cannot be excused, there seems to be some hope they can redeem themselves by focusing on upholding the Constitution of the United States.
Consistently Follows Oath: The incumbent is a rare person that has the courage to buck the trends in DC that consistently flaunt the Constitution of the United States. The consistently uphold their Oath of Office.
Challenger with No Voting Record
Because there is no way to assess this kind of candidate’s record, we will assess information on the candidate’s positions to see if they understand Constitutional issues. If the candidates’ positions demonstrate basic understanding of the Constitution, we will administer a Constitutional Test from our partners at the American Patriots Committee. They scored the results. We then try to get an opportunity to talk to the candidate.
Our Rating System:
Little/No chance the candidate will uphold their oath.
Based on their positions or answers to vetting questions or the Constitutional test, they obviously don’t understand the Constitution and therefore cannot be expected to uphold it.
They Understand the Constitution and Seem Ready to Uphold Their Oath
Based on their positions and answers to vetting questions and the Constitutional test, the candidate appears to understand the Constitution. They appear ready to make decisions that are consistent with the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Please note: Just because a piece of legislation or a position is constitutionally sound does not necessarily mean it is a good piece of legislation. But Constitutional fitness should be the first question asked of any piece of legislation.