Since the New Deal, the American people have witnessed the federal government steadily overstep its authority established by the U.S. Constitution. But that just laid the groundwork for the damage that has occurred over the past two years. The snowball started with bailouts for the two housing giants, Fannie and Freddie, followed by the banking and auto bailouts, and then lawmakers drafted an overhaul of our financial industry to establish permanent bailouts. Now Washington is trying to takeover our entire health care system, our energy-supply, and even the job market.
All of these egregious grabs for the American people’s liberties are just symptoms of a deadly disease. When Washington creates a new federal program, the debate often revolves around the merits of the program. A few politicians may even bother to debate whether or not we can afford to fund an additional program. However, no one is asking the most important question: do we have the constitutional authority?
I am a strict, original intent constitutionalist. Before I cast a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, I apply my four-way test: is it right/moral? Is it constitutional? Is it needed? Is it affordable? If the legislation fails the first two questions, I stop there.
Too often, Members of Congress, skip to the third question or even all the way to the fourth question. This is but one reason that our government continues to grow. And this never ending expansion leads to more need for revenue – which is squeezed from taxpayers’ pockets. Enough is enough.
Washington has already demonstrated a complete lack of self-control. In order to restore our nation to the limited government established by our Founding Fathers, the American people will have to demand it—and it requires going back to the beginning.
Understanding that the Constitution is a stable document is the crux to restoring our nation. If the Constitution is viewed to be ever-changing, it opens the door to wide interpretation by judges and legislators. We cannot rule by whatever way the political wind blows. We need something to guide our steps, and the Constitution is our compass. We shouldn’t interpret the Constitution. We should apply the Constitution.
Our elected officials swear and affirm to protect the Constitution. Every time we elect leaders who are willing to grow government and infringe on our rights, our liberties are assaulted.
I recently signed the Mt Vernon Statement, which acknowledges that the ideals upon which this nation was founded are under attack. I remain committed to ensuring that the government performs its duties without violating the boundaries outlined in the Constitution.
Not only will I continue to oppose any legislation that disregards the principles outlined in the Constitution, I will continue my efforts to educate the American people on these issues. However, I cannot do it alone.
I urge Americans to arm themselves with knowledge by re-visiting and re-reading the Constitution and share the information with your friends and neighbors. When you read Article 1 Section 8, you may be surprised to see how few areas the federal government has authority over and how much the authors left to the states. Change in Washington will only come when lit by small grassfires across the country, and you can light that fire of freedom and liberty.
The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.
What do you think most Americans would say if the U.S. government created a new and exclusively race-based government with the authority to exempt itself from the U.S. Constitution and state authority at its own discretion? As ridiculous as it sounds, that is exactly what the House of Representatives voted for yesterday by a vote of 245-164. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that the passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2010 pleased President Obama, and that he, “looks forward to signing the bill into law and establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.” But before celebrating the birth of a new tropical bureaucracy (it still needs to pass the Senate) our lawmakers should put some thought into whether this plan is equitable and constitutional. Brian Darling, The Heritage Foundation’s Director of Senate Relations, explains that the plan would create a racially exclusive government, “to solicit federal monies and create programs to benefit individuals who fit the definition of “Native Hawaiian.”
Congratulations, Native Hawaiians. You are the 2010 nominee for the government-issued identity politics prize. The winnings include self-governance, with the authority to go over the head of the Hawaiian state government (without the support of the Governor) to negotiate with the federal government over territorial, resource, and tax matters. Now, who qualifies as a Native Hawaiian? The plan indicates that a federal commission is to decide using criteria including, but not limited to, “a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who resided on the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893”, as well as being eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, or a direct lineal descendant of such a person.
However, National Review’s Duncan Currie uncovered that such eligibility guidelines are “essentially meaningless”, since the Native Hawaiian governing entity would hold the trump card of, “inherent power and authority to determine its own membership criteria, to determine its own membership, and to grant, deny, revoke, or qualify membership without regard to whether any person was or was not deemed to be a qualified Native Hawaiian constituent under this Act” (emphasis added by Currie).
Brian Darling elaborates on some of the glaring affronts to equality in the Native Hawaiian plan:
A United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations would be created to negotiate a special political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The supporters of this bill argue that Native Hawaiians are similar to an Indian tribe and they should be declared a sovereign entity so they can negotiate benefits from the U.S. government. The fact of the matter is that Hawaii was a kingdom with a monarch before becoming a state, unlike American Indian Tribes. Furthermore, the Tribes recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are not racially exclusive and the Native Hawaiian government would be race based.
It’s worth remembering that Hawaii joined the United States in 1959. Many at the time, on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum, saw it as the triumph of American values:
Hawaii is America in a microcosm – a melting pot of many racial and national origins, from which has been produced a common nationality, a common patriotism, a common faith in freedom and the institutions of America. – Senator Herbert Lehman (D-NY), Congressional Record, April 1, 1954, at 4325.
Hawaii is living proof that people of all races, cultures and creeds can live together in harmony and well-being, and that democracy as advocated by the United States has in fact afforded a solution to some of the problems constantly plaguing the world. – Testimony of John A. Burns, Delegate to Congress from the Territory of Hawaii, before the Senate Committee on the Interior and Insular Affairs, April 1, 1957.
An overwhelming 94.3% of Hawaiians at the time voted for statehood, knowing full well that they would be embracing the American values of freedom and equality of all people regardless of race, class, or ethnic group. Further, nowhere in the debate for Hawaiian statehood did any U.S. Member of Congress suggest that the U.S. treat the so-called Native Hawaiians like an indigenous Indian tribe. Common decency and the U.S. Constitution prohibit the government from bestowing tailored rights or privileges upon one racial or ethnic group at the expense of others. Former Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage legal scholar Todd Gaziano explain that:
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted precisely to prevent a state from excluding certain of its residents from the privileges and immunities of citizenship, especially on the basis of race or ethnicity…All United States citizens who reside in Hawaii are equally citizens of Hawaii and are entitled to enjoy all the privilege and immunities common to other citizens, including the protection against discriminatory laws—especially racially-discriminatory laws.
All Americans, regardless of their policy preferences, should be outraged at the prospects of a law that promotes benefits and extra-constitutional sovereignty to a class of people simply because of their racial or ethnic background. Preserving the indigenous Hawaiian culture is a worthy end, but ignoring the governing law of the land and the U.S. Constitution by administering a racial purity test is not the way to do that.