The Anchorage Daily News asked candidates for U.S. House running in the special primary election to answer a series of questions. Read all of their responses here.
SILVIO E. PELLEGRINI, undeclared affiliation, from Fort Wainwright
What in your background qualifies you to represent Alaskans in Congress?
Idealism. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says House members must be at least 25 years old; a United States citizen for at least seven years prior; and a resident of the state chosen to represent. I am qualified, as our founders intended. Since the age of 16, entering in delayed enlistment, I have served our great nation as my purpose for the last 20 years of military service. Once again, I feel this calling to perform my civic duty and serve when our nation needs it the most.
Why are you running for U.S. Congress in Alaska?
To be the change agent leading in service of my constituents, the voices unheard, shuttered, or disregarded.
What would be your top priority if elected to Congress?
Remain candid. Always. My priorities will be the same as my constituents’ and I will be accountable to them. Communicate laterally and vertically with the U.S. government and Alaskans on these issues by developing a reasonable plan. Prioritize, and deliver for resolution. I feel Alaskans want transparency, protection of individual freedoms and liberties, and to maintain our high standards for quality of life. All efforts will always have these underlying principles in mind.
What is your position on abortion?
The framing of current laws suffices in a balance between the protection of life and individual liberty over one’s body.
If legislation came before the U.S. House that would guarantee the same abortion rights nationwide as the Roe v. Wade decision, how would you vote?
Yes.
If you support abortion rights, what limitations, if any, do you think should be placed on those rights, such as waiting periods or a specific point in a pregnancy where abortion should no longer be legal?
The laws should be written to protect both life and liberty in a way that projects the assumption and current litmus of viability may change as medicine advances and our definition of life is better understood. Under this framework, future generations will be equipped with the foundational legislation that is malleable, empowering and protective to the needs of future generations.
Would you support a bill, if it came before the House, to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court? Why or why not?
Certainly not. We must accept at times in a democracy that we may not always agree with one another. Seeking ways to manipulate the system to receive the outcome you wish is a bastardization of the powers delegated to our representatives that may ultimately be exploited for nefarious reasons. Even if I disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling, the first act of the legislator is not to change the system to alter balance for preferential outcome, but rather write or rescind the laws in a way that gives the Supreme Court a desired interpretation that best reflects the needs of the people.
What do you think should be done by the federal government to address mass shootings?
Work with state, Native and local government organizations for tailored solutions such as enforcement of current laws, information sharing and public mental health programs.
Do you support gun control legislation? If so, what kind of measures would you support? If not, why not?
I am a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment and regard these issues to be systematic and highly complex, requiring unique and tailored solutions for their unique nature. E.g., information-sharing through fusion centers, multi-governmental cooperation agreements for directed enforcement of standing laws and performing analysis of these tragedies to determine the best course of action that does not infringe on constitutional liberties. We must remain calm, collected, and support those in need before remotely attempting to implement any controls without causational and measurable outcomes.