Deseret News candidate questionnaire: U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon

0 Comments | Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jun 11, 2008 | by Deseret News

11 -- How should the Iraqi War be brought to a conclusion?

"The Iraqi War should be brought to a conclusion with a status of forces agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government and a full transfer of police and national security responsibility to the elected Iraqi government. This is rapidly becoming a reality as the surge has brought stability and political opportunity to the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. After an agreement is reached, American troops should begin phased withdrawals. Key to this process and its success is the continued demonstration of our resolve to see it through -- and continued pressure on Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world."

12 -- How long do you think American troops should be in Iraq?

"American troops should remain in Iraq as long as the Administration and the Iraqi government agree. The Iraqi government needs American assistance, at least in the short term, to retain the stability that many, both American and Iraqi troops, have fought and died for. Whether we like it or not, America has a vital national security interest in the Middle East and in a stable and democratic Iraq. We must see our commitment through."

13 -- Can you now promise not to vote to raise taxes over the next two years?

"As a nationally recognized leader against any tax increases, I can say I will not vote to raise taxes over the next two years."

14 -- What role do you think religion should play in America's political and governmental life?

"Religious freedom and the protection thereof are fundamental to our system of government. At the same time, it is foolish and ill- advised to try, as have too many activist Courts, to somehow remove from government the basic reality that much of our system of laws and governing is based upon certain moral beliefs that are common to almost all faiths. For any democratic system to work, it must be founded upon at least some degree of shared beliefs and values; to the extent those are derived from religion, government cannot "outlaw" them."

15 -- Utah's two U.S. senators are split over whether the federal constitution should be changed to protect the flag. Do you favor or oppose such an amendment?

"I support the constitutional amendment to protect the flag not because I take amending the Constitution lightly, but rather because I believe the flag represents more then a conduit of speech. It represents the values of this country. It is important to note that burning the American flag was only recently deemed free speech. In 1989 when the Supreme Court decided to protect flag burning as an expression of free speech, it was only agreed to by a 5-4 decision. It is from that decision that Congress has the power and authority to affirm or reject the ruling through legislation or constitutional amendment. The arguments for desecration turn on the notion that desecration is a protected form of speech. But I contend burning the flag is one of action or conduct -- not just uttered words. At the time of the decision, the Court reasoned that the conduct could be speech if those viewing the act can understand the message being conveyed. This rationalization is overbroad because speech is what we understand, not what may be in a particular individual's mind. I have always opposed Hate Crimes legislation because I never understood how you can decipher what is in a persons mind, but you can understand the action and punish it appropriately. Under the court's rationalization, anyone can use the First Amendment defense as a backstop for their actions, which is not the original intent of that Amendment. I firmly believe that Veterans and soldiers have paid a price for protecting the flag and the least we can do is to show our support for that symbol by removing obnoxious protests disguised as speech."