For those who want to check out the views of Candidate Liz Michael of AZ. here is a post of her views on civil liberties.
EXCERPT BEGINS
Civil Liberties and Personal Freedoms
Repeal the Patriot Act

The so-called "Patriot Act" is perhaps the greatest piece of treason ever devised for a free people since the Enabling Act of National Socialist Germany. It is my promise to see the Pariot Act repealed. But that's not enough. I believe every person who voted for this piece of treason should be put on trial for treason, and suffer the penalty designated for traitors.

"Fatherland Security"

I categorically reject George W.Bush's Freedom Corps, Citizens Corps, Citizens Corps Councils, Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), Volunteers in Police Service, and his attempt to subvert the nature of Neighborhood Watch programs. I refuse to participate in an American version of East Germany's Stasi or the similar citizens' spying programs established by Nazi Germany, Vichy France, Stalinist Russia, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Vigilance is good, but we as a free people cannot spy on our neighbors, denounce people who have different religious and political beliefs than our own, or use our positions of employment to assist law enforcement and intelligence agencies in creating files on people exercising their constitutional rights. Under no circumstance should we craft or participate in any of the government groups that encourage spying on our fellow citizens, and I believe any such government organization must be killed wherever it is found, for freedom's sake.

I oppose the excessive measures being taken at the nation's airports and the nation's highways, and encourage civil disobedience against these measures. We are a free people, and should be allowed to travel freely without Soviet-style intimidation and harassment by government thugs.

We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice? We all agree that terrorists should be brought to justice, but what kind of justice? The American jurisprudence system is the envy of the free world with its emphasis on due process. Yet a recent Executive Order of this administration substitutes our American justice system for military tribunals where officers sit as judge and jury, with secret evidence, secret witnesses, secret verdicts and even secretly handed down death sentences. We should not let the actions of terrorists cause us to reject a fair system of justice.

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and Internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data that may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government that takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy.

Bill Of Rights Enforcement Agency

Because much of the abuse of civil liberties is at the state and local level, I propose a new federal agency, the Bill Of Rights Enforcement Agency, whose sole job it would be to go after federal, state and local government entities and employees who violate the constitutional rights of the citizenry. The Bill Of Rights Enforcement Agency would also have jusridiction over quasi-government entities and government authorized monopolies and their employees.

Religious Liberties
Freedom is something that has a strong religious grounding for me. In the Tanach, when were true believers in Yaheveh most free to worship as they knew they should? The period of the Judges. What kind of government existed during the period of the Judges? One of the most classical liberal governments believers in Yaheveh ever lived under in history. When the Israelites began to demand to "be like the rest of the world", and have kings rule over them, Yaheveh warned them that what they were about to do would result in disaster. And it did. It ushered in a period of successive governments where, with few exceptions, true believers in Yaheveh were persecuted.

The history of this very country demonstrates a similar principle. When classical liberal principles were followed, true believers in the Creator were allowed to prosper. But whenever those principles were abandoned, as in state churches, as in the witch hunts, and as in slavery, monstrous evils resulted, invariably with persecutions against believers.

Again, I see people, most of whom are earnest believers, making these same mistakes. I will readily admit to being a sinner and even a scoundrel at times. But I know enough to know this. To have the freedom to worship as you see is right, you have to grant the freedom to others, to worship, or to not worship, as they will. You may preach at the pulpit and on the streets all you wish on what is wrong and what is right, even if I think you're wrong. Even using the bully pulpit of public office to encourage morality is good. But trying to compel righteousness through legal authority never works. All we have to do is look at the Pharisees, Imperial Rome, and the Holy Roman Empire to see what man-devised theocracies become: that period of the Judges worked for the most part, and the closer America followed its example, the better a country, and dare I say, a more godly country, we were.

Moreover, we must resist, with all our might, the temptation to tie church and state together, in such concepts as IRS 501c3 "tax-approved" churches, and "faith based initiatives". Accordingly, one of my first pieces of legislation will be to strike down 501c3 and remove the ability of the federal goverment to regulate the affairs of churches.

Prayer in Public School
I oppose in general, organized prayer in public school led by a public official such as a teacher: that clearly is not constitutional.

However, students are not public officials, and I believe any attempt to censor a student's freedom of speech or assembly, during such things as valedictorian addresses and football games over religious conduct, or even the wearing of religious insignia, is equally unconstitutional.

Moreover, I do not believe that a teacher should be persecuted or expelled from a public school, for attempting to comfort a class during a tragedy with spontaneous prayer, as a teacher in New York was recently victimized for doing. Nor do I believe a teacher should be compelled to supress his or her religious beliefs or hide them.

I do not believe that the First Amendment requires a school or a government body to avoid all reference to God at all costs. Nor do I believe governments should be compelled to remove already established religious artifacts from their property. Forbidding establishment of a religion does not equate with censorship of religious expression.

Affirmative Action
I believe that making decisions on people based on their race is itself racist. Only affirmative action programs which truly favor the truly disadvantaged, using factors such as economic class, income, or poverty, are worthy concepts in my opinion.

I believe that all racial classifications by governments should be eliminated. This includes the census, which should ask no questions about race or ethnicity. The census has been used in the present day, to discriminate, and in the 40's, to inter Japanese-Amercians in camps. As long as our government keeps data on race, our civil liberties are threatened by that data, and the ability of the government to engage race-based genocide is enhanced.

Regulation of the Internet
Simply stated, I do not believe the internet should be regulated in any way that any other area of society would not also be regulated. Most of the freedom of the net can be summed up in the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. I also oppose moves by some to burden internet commerce with cumbersome tax requirements. The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.

I oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. I specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. I also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods.

Protection of Children from Vice
The primary responsibility for protection and supervision of children rests with parents and guardians, not the state. I do not believe that vendors of any particular item, substance, literature, film, video, or web site, should be punished for having a minor simply stumble upon them, or having a minor seeking them out. Certainly I support easily verifiable measures such as carding for cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, firearms, and pornography. But I believe their responsiblity is limited to what a vendor can reasonably be expected to supervise, such as activity on his premises or in the vicinity of his premises.

The web is a complex issue, and some legislators want to go to extraordinary measures to somehow guarantee a minor will never see certain sites. But in most states, individuals under 18 cannot sign a contract without parental consent. Therefore, they cannot legally contract to purchase a computer, or contract to purchase web access, without the consent of a parent. Therefore, the real problem with kids getting into pornographic web sites really rests with parental failure to adequately supervise them. This is not the fault of either the state or of the site owner: therefore, they should not be held accountable for parental irresponsibility. Nor should the site owner be forced to make the decision for the parent of what a child should or should not see.

Pornography and other censorship

The entire wrinkle in the whole concept of censorship is "who decides". Even when censorship SEEMS like a good thing to do, there's always that bugaboo about who makes the decision. And that's just about the same thing in every other aspect of life, and it separates those who prefer liberty from those who prefer dependency.

I believe the decision to filter pornographic sites on computers likely to be found in use by children in public places, such as schools or school libraries, should be made on a localized basis, not from a central government. We must be very careful so as not to infringe upon the liberty of individuals seeking free information.

Gambling
While gambling gone awry certainly could be defined as a potentially addictive and destructive behavior, I believe the states, by endorsement of their own gambling programs and lotteries, lack any moral standing to argue the continued illegality of gambling. While I believe that localities have the right to regulate whether gaming establishments shall exist in their community, and if so, where, I do not believe the states have any legitimate interest in the criminalization of fair gaming of any type.

Driving and Identity Cards
The issuance of drivers' licenses should rest solely on the ability of any given individual to drive, and on no other factor, such as their identity, their citizenship, their gender, or any other factor. Ideally, so many people drive anyway that having the government license drivers is a useless invasion of privacy. Moreover, we cannot infringe on the constitutionally protected right to freedom of movement and travel.

A better approach would be to have drivers licensed by private organizations, such as AAA, insurance companies, and what have you, when an entity such as a bank holding title on a car, an employer having to verify an individual's qualifications, or an insurance company verifying an auto insurance risk, needs to verify that an individual has adequate qualifications to drive.

The practice of setting roadblocks to randomly test for intoxicated drivers is blatantly unconstitutional, and law enforcement should not be allowed to stop a driver without probable cause that a crime or violation is being committed, has been committed, or that an individual is reasonably expected to have a warrant for his arrest. Such officers who engage in unconstitutional roadblocks are subject to arrest and removal under the U. S. Code.

Moreover, I oppose the issuance by the government of identity cards, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing. This includes the widespread illegal use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments, or by companies out of convenience to themselves.

Self-Medication
I believe in the repeal of laws prohibiting self-medication, and believe that many currently controlled substances should be decontrolled. I believe in the legalization of any and all medicinal substances, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that either the claims made for the product are fraudulent, or that the dangers of the drug significantly outweigh any possible benefits. I oppose any moves for prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances. I believe that state discrimination against alternative medical disciplines such as oesteopathy, acupuncture, eastern and tribal medicine, wholistic medicine, herbal medicine, and chiropracy should cease.

Suicide and Assisted Suicide
I do not believe there should be laws against suicide. However, I do not believe that allowing others to assist in a suicide, or allowing someone to wilfully and artificially terminate a patient's life can be allowed. I have great concern when others enter into a decision, or attempt in influence a decision, of any individual to commit suicide, or make a self-decision that this is what the patient "would have wanted". I have yet to see assisted suicide laws that adequately protect a patient's right not to be killed or protect a patient's right to change their mind.

I do not believe that a "feeding tube" represents extraordinary measures, and I do not believe any patient should be purposefully starved or dehydrated in order to hasten their death. This is just simply cruel and brutal to do to a human being. I do not believe a person must be forced to starve because they are incapable of feeding themselves.

Other Victimless Crimes

Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, I favor the repeal of any law creating "crimes" without victims, including prostitution and drug use. Also, no "crime" should be created which sole or primary purpose is to raise revenue.

The Right to Define Gender
I believe the right to define one's gender rests with the individual, and I believe the state has no interest in defining the gender of its citizens, on documents such as drivers' licenses, birth registrations, marriage certificates, etc. Just as discrimination on the basis of gender should not be legal, why should the state have an interest in defining gender at all, except in very narrow circumstances?

Freedom to Define Family
I support the rights of sexual minorities, and I support the rights of all people, regardless of orientation, to civilly marry whom they choose and love whom they choose.

Various "Definition of Marriage Initiatives" are frequently propsed by religious groups. They are statements to the effect, that the state should insert itself into YOUR family, and define YOUR family as valid or invalid. I wholehearted reject this concept and reject all DOMI's.

Additionally, these initiatives perpetuate hatred and divisiveness toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual people. They do nothing material to promote or defend heterosexual marriage. Instead, they target certain individuals as illegitimate to have the ability to take marriage vows.

I go on record as stating I support domestic partnership arrangements, support the rights of sexual minorities to adopt, and support the freedom of all people to orient, define, and arrange their families in whatever manner they as individuals choose. I support allowing cities and counties to issue marriage certificates which are "gender neutral". Moreover, many individuals such as myself come from a religious tradition where it is forbidden to submit religious sacraments such as marriage to the state for approval: such individuals should have the legal right to be recognized as married whenever they so choose.

Sexual Liberties
I favor the repeal of all state and federal laws regarding consensual sexual relations between adults, including prostitution, pandering, sodomy and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of sexual minorities. Nuisances such as street prostitution should be banned on a local level under nuisance and zoning ordinances. If a legal venue for buyers and sellers of sexual services is allowed somewhere, it will be easier to rid localities of nuisance prostitution.

I will work for the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material among adults, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards", unless it involves the exploitation of minors. I do not personally support porn: I see most pornography as a corruption and distortion of real sexuality which is counterproductive to the promotion of healthy sexuality. However, who is it that should determine what is "healthy", what is "acceptible"? And even if someone is distributing material that is clearly perverse, does that individual deserve to be imprisoned for doing that? Not unless he has compelled someone, killed someone, or victimized a minor. I reject this concept of "if it is wrong, it should therefore be illegal".

Moreover, I do not subscribe to the American moral ethic on nudity that is unique to this nation. I personally am not offended by nudity, nor do I believe mere nudity is an unhealthy thing. I do not believe that sex is such a disgusting thing that having it seen is something which should be subject to prosecution and imprisonment. I believe that this puritan aversion some of us in America seem to have toward all things sexual is itself somewhat unnatural, and opens the gate for various perversions of sex.

EXCERPT ENDS