Mike Lee NOTE: This is a typed record of a meeting, not an actual transcript. I did my best to capture the intent when I couldn't get the exact words. I may have gotten a few things wrong, so don't take everything in here as a 100% pure representation. Hopefully it will still be useful in providing an overview of what came up and what was said on the topics presented. Assume quality goes down as the document progresses. In several cases there was expansion dialogue that I didn't try to keep up with, instead typing only the main points, so there isn't as much depth recorded here. There was also some quick discussion back and forth a few times that I didn't bother trying to keep up with. I have inserted Wikipedia references where I think it would be useful for additional information, and to compensate for additional explanations that Mike Lee provided that I did not record. Standard Wikipedia disclaimers apply. 7:35 PM – Start Intro by Monte Bateman Mike Lee: Monte asked what would be the best way to introduce me. I said “introduce me as an American who has never been convicted of a federal offense.” (Laughter) The Constitution is a subject near and dear to my heart. I'd like to focus on a topic that is often overlooked. We should expect more from our representatives, especially those in Washington. There are some things not right with our federal government. Obama got one thing right: we do need change in our federal government. I disagree on every other point. I also disagree that he's offering change, but more of the same. A little bit of history, 200 years ago. During the colonial era, which lasted longer than our country has existed. We had lots of experience dealing with the British crown. There were long periods where the Crown was at war. France, in particular. The Crown would leave us alone through much of war time. During that time we prospered, and discovered that commerce worked. Adam Smith: invisible hand of free market lifts everyone up when allowed to work. The war ended, and the Crown raised taxes to pay for the wars. We started to see problems. Farmers couldn't keep all of what they made. This hurt everyone. We wanted representation in Parliament. The nice thing about being the King, what you say is the law. He didn't want to give up control. This eventually resulted in the Declaration of Independence. (Mike recites the preamble from memory, with some comments.) In effect it was a declaration of war. It wasn't just that we had a king, but that we were being taxed unduly. The king was advised by a Parliament we had no voice in. We fought a war, which we won. We responded by creating a government we wanted to be weak. We had the Articles of Confederation. We figured that the less government we have, the better off we'll be. We discovered that this is not always the case. We had no central authority that could speak for all of the colonies in foreign affairs. Individual states were too weak to negotiate on their own. There were no fair relations between colonies. The Articles of Confederation lasted about a decade. Then we had the Constitution. We found the right balance, not by saying “we'll make government bigger.” We set tight ground rules outlining which entities had which power. Within those spheres of power, there were no limits to that power, but we set limits. Allocations of horizontal and vertical authority. Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Vertically, the federal government would be supreme within its sphere. We understood that a republic could become tyrannical in the same way as a monarchy. The federal government would only be supreme in enumerated powers. Everything else belonged to the states and the people. It was brilliant because it specified and limited. It has become known as the enumerated powers doctrine. That's a fancy way to say “the federal government can do what it wants, but only in a specific sphere of authority.” Article I tells Congress how it operates. Section 2 outlines what powers belong to Congress. Unless Congress can make a law, there are none for the Executive to enforce or the Judicial to interpret. If it isn't given by the Constitution, it doesn't belong to the federal government. Some of the Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution: 1. Common defense An awful problem existed in the colonies before the Constitution. Taxing goods between the states was an issue. The Constitution/our nation would not have ever existed if not for the commerce clause. The Supreme Court, with some exceptions, has ruled that states cannot prejudice against products from other states or nations. The 10th Amendment reiterates what is implicit, or even explicit in the Constitution. Chief Justice Stone in the 1930s (quote). ------- (Start of Q&A session. Q: indicates person and/or people asking the question. A: Indicates Mike Lee. Sometimes there are some back-and-forth comments & discussion.) Q: What about implied powers? Marbury vs. Madison? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) A: That established the concept of judicial review. Implied in context mentioned: “necessary & proper” clause. I.e.: in establishing the Postal Service, Congress can set the price of a stamp. Q: Could you use the Louisiana Purchase as example? A: Yes, the President can negotiate a treaty. Congress can ratify it, including everything that goes along with it. Power is a zero-sum game between the federal government and the states. The federal government can pre-empt the states and overrule state law. Q: For example, California can't legalize pot? A: That's a great example. That one went all the way to the Supreme Court. One state can't decide to not be bound by the law. In the early 20th century, the courts started experimenting with its powers a little bit more. There had to be a direct connection to interstate commerce. Hammer vs. Dagenhart. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v._Dagenhart) The federal government was trying to enact and enforce child labor laws. Labor by its nature takes place in a finite location – with some exceptions. It was ruled that it was not interstate commerce, so Congress had no oversight. Then FDR got elected and pushed a lot of labor laws, minimum wage, etc. The courts held to Hammer vs. Dagenhart. FDR didn't like that. He was a wealthy aristocrat in NY. He was used to getting his way. He engaged in a court packing plan, which ultimately failed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing). However, the Court got the message. The court started turning around. 1938 – National Labor Relations Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26...). This was a new approach: if the activity had a overall impact on interstate law, you could regulate it. Minimum wage case. That precedent is still on the books and is what people follow. Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Example of farmer who exceeded grain quota. The Secretary of Agriculture didn't like it and brought suit. The Court ruled that, in the aggregate, even though the grain was for personal use, if everyone did it, it would have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. Under that approach, EVERYTHING can be regulated under interstate commerce. The point of this discussion is not to take a shot at the Supreme Court. I think they did the best they could. However, they took the decision too far. Lopez decision – Court declared unconstitutional the federal “gun free school zone” act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). It then laid out a recipe on how Congress could get around it. If any part of the gun was manufactured out of state, Congress can regulate it. Congress followed the lead. Justice Thomas is a hero of mine. Quite arguably the smartest man I've ever met, and the wisest man I ever met. I hesitate a little because of my great respect for Alito. “If we continue to follow this path that Congress can regulate in the aggregate, there is no limit to what Congress can do.” The Constitution was designed and intended to limit federal government power. If we continue down this road, there is nothing Congress can't touch. This isn't just an academic exercise. This isn't just something for law geeks. There is a real practical reason why this should bother everyone. It's not that I think the world is going to explode if the court doesn't overturn...(?) Ever since that case, Congress has felt that because it can to anything, it should do everything. Congress should take a look in the Constitution and say “I don't see anything in here about health care, or midnight basketball.” My wife routinely tells our children “just because you can, doesn't mean you should.” Congress hasn't stopped to think about whether it should. Where we are today. The federal government feels compelled to reallocate wealth. The federal government has the right to tax my wealth. They do not have the right to take my money and give it to someone else. It's one thing to fund the government. It's quite another to decide when someone has made too much money. I maintain that this country was saved by the Constitution. It would have withered and died under the Articles of Confederation. Q: Why doesn't Congress follow the Constitution? A: Have you ever seen the movie The Emperor's New Groove? It's a great cartoon. About on my level. There's a part in there when one of the lead characters has two choices to make. And angel and a devil sit on each shoulder. The angel says: “I'll lead you in the way of righteousness.” The devil says: “I'll lead you the way that rocks.” The more liberal someone becomes, the more powerful they become. Courts, Congress, etc. The more they spend, the more they're rewarded. Q: So the education department and government are taking control of indoctrinating our children. How is that justified under the commerce clause? A: Yes, that's where it's justified – using lower case and quotation marks. If people can read and write better, they can get better jobs. That definitely impacts interstate commerce, right? That is the kind of mental gymnastics they've done. We probably won't be able to get the courts to change in our lifetime. But if we can get Congress to follow the Constitution, we can fix it. Q: What about a Constitutional amendment to clarify the commerce clause? A: (Some discussion of what that would take.) Regrettably, the Republican party has been in charge a lot since 1994, but sadly, in the 1990s, the federal budget deficit was in the $3-$2 trillion range. Now it's in the $11 trillion range. We're talking massive redistributions of wealth. A large portion of our federal budget goes towards just paying interest on the debt. Think about what that means. (Some discussion of numbers.) A lot of these entitlement programs are like a Ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme). Q: There's a recommendation to make it a requirement that there is a cover page on every piece of legislation stating where in the Constitution the power to make the law derived from. A: That's a wonderful idea. Q: What was the driving cause of the commerce clause? A: It was intended to be a way to override state laws. It was a negative power to invalidate state laws. Second, it was a positive power to regulate things that genuinely impacted interstate commerce. Q: (I missed the question.) A: Congressman Chaffetz does an outstanding job. I'm impressed not only by his love of the Constitution, but also his desire to understand it. I don't think “our other senator” (Bennett) asks the questions. TARP legislation – he voted for it. $1 trillion bill to my grandchildren. $3000 per person. Plus, 40% of households pay no federal income tax. That set a precedent that that is okay. He's a Republican representing a state with the lowest median age in the country. Sure, Bennett voted against the stimulus bill, but he also put $50 billion in the package. It was eventually taken out. His explanation for the initial package: “our economy was about to go off a cliff from which it couldn't recover. Our entire economy hinges on this business (that needed bailing out).” If that is the case, why not use that as leverage to roll back entitlement programs so we're paying the bill, not our grandkids? Bennett is opposed to a balanced budget amendment. We have a balanced budget amendment precedent in Utah. Every year Bennett says it won't work. Why? Because every year the Democrats will just raise taxes. However, if that's the case, every time they have a new spending program, they couldn't fund it without raising taxes. How long would they be in power? Not long. Currently, they just pass the bill on to the next generation. Bennett is complicit in this. Q: Based on press reports, we have four people running or thinking of running for Bennett's spot. Bennett, Lee, Schurtleff, Leavitt. I have two questions: 1) Why should I support you? David Leavitt after it was apparent he lost, walked with Cannon to give the impression that he supported Cannon. After the primary, neither of them stood up to say “I thought I would have done a better job, but I stand behind Chaffetz.” What if you don't win at the primary, what are you going to do? A: I agree that it is regrettable how they handled it. I would have handled it differently. Anyone who shows me they are a conservative, that they hold to the Constitution, that they are not comfortable putting $1 trillion on a credit card. I like Schurtleff. I told him I was planning on running. I told him: “Should you announce your intention to run, the more the merrier.” If he wins, if it helps beat Bennett, so much the better. We are not a country of men, but of laws. We shouldn't be a party of men and women, but a party of principles. Q: One of the interesting things about Chaffetz's campaign is that he broke the rules on how much it costs to beat an incumbent. How much do you think it would take? A: I don't know. I'd guess $300,000 as a shoestring budget to get you through convention. Q: Comments about stimulus package. If we are truly in the majority in Utah, a fiscally responsible group, should we accept any money from the stimulus package into Utah? A: The trouble is that there is no central authority in Utah that can turn it down. Utah taxpayers are paying money out to fund it, so it's a tricky situation to determine whether we should turn it away. We need someone in the Utah delegation that is more opposed to that sort of thing on the front end. Q: In 1992, the other senator was debating three other candidates. I was impressed with his knowledge of the Constitution. He was able to quote straight from the Constitution. However, his commitment has not been evidenced recently. You demonstrate a lot of that same knowledge. How do we know you'll not be swayed? A: (Recounting of job history.) I have taken pay cuts moving around from job to job to gain a greater understanding of Constitutional law. It's a part of my life. I was brought up talking about clauses around the dinner table. (Personal story about when he was 10.) Q: How can you guard against violating your principles? I have the utmost confidence in Jason right now. Hatch used to be there to counterbalance Kennedy. Now he's in bed with him. A: Apply the same standard...(?) 7 of 9 of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. We've made some colossal mistakes as Republicans. We need to identify those who are decidedly one way – those who believe in the limited role of the judiciary. (Constructionists, not necessarily conservatives.) Law schools turn out lawyers like sausage. They tend to be liberal. I can't prove myself to you because I can't fast-forward the movie, but I've seen it played in my head over and over again. Q: How can we keep them honest? We can, as the voters. There's far too much apathy in the general populace. It's our job to pay attention and to get rid of the elected officials who don't stay true the principles. A: Excellent point. I think you'll find a more conservative Bennett in the next 12 months. Q: Jason's immigration plan. A: I'll tell you generally where I am on immigration. If you want to mention any particular part of Jason's plan? Q: (Reading of Jason's 7 points. According to http://www.jasonforcongress.com/page/page/5678465.htm they are: A: I agree with every one of those. I would add an 8th. This one is a bit off the beaten path. It would have to do with our prison population. There is an alarmingly large number of those we are sending to prison who are not from our country; a really big percentage of our criminal defendants. It's an opportunity for them to network and learn job skills. One of the problems with immigration is that a lot of people come here for the wrong reasons: health care, other social programs. My number 8 would be a way to take people who violate our laws and imprison them in their own country. Q: I recommend a re-emphasis on making it so people can come in legally. And make it not worth it to come in illegally. A: Agreed. The federal government needs to focus on what the fed is allowed to do. For example, states can't issue visas. Q: How do we recover financially? A: We're on a road to Scandinavia. We need to reign it in. We need a balanced budget amendment. Also, that we can't spend more than a specific amount of GDP. We need a lot of reform. We need to get away from a candidates' sense of self-preservation. States feel compelled to send someone back because of seniority. We need to get away from that mindset. Maximum two terms for Senate, six (?) terms for Representatives (12 years total in both cases?). Q: What are your feelings about the Federal Reserve? Should it be abolished? Because it's a private institution. A: I don't have any plan to abolish them. I understand the concern... Scalia dissent ref: Morrison vs. Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_v._Olson). Any extraconstitutional agency is not accountable. Nixon, going off the gold standard on the “full faith and credit of the US government.” I wish we still had the gold standard. I wouldn't put it on the front line of changes we need to make. There are other things we need to change first. Thanks for being here. I want to close by saying I love my country and I'm proud to be an American. I honor and respect Bob Bennett. I think his heart is in the right place, but I think he's been there too long. 9:05 PM - End |
|||
 |
Lynn D. Taylor |
|
|
|
(c) 2008
 |