Comment E-mail Print Bio Archives

There is only one way to save this great nation: by returning to the principles of freedom set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This week, hundreds of thousands of people expressed their frustration with government-gone-wild by gathering in more than 300 cities across the nation in modern-day "Tea Parties." That is T-E-A - as in Taxed Enough Already -- parties. The common theme among all these people is -- "we've had enough of big government!"

The U.S. Constitution limits the power of government, but government has consistently ignored those limitations. The only way to reverse the trend of ever-expanding government is to return to the Constitution.

All the energy on display this week cannot simply fade away. It must be channeled into a constructive focus that will make a difference. One way to help restore the U.S. Constitution is to require that every new legislative proposal specify the chapter and verse of the Constitution that authorizes the proposal. If every Congressman had to specify exactly where the Constitution authorizes his proposed legislation, there would be much less legislation proposed.

Arizona Representative John Shadegg has been trying to get Congress to enact such a law since 1994. Every Congress since 1994 has killed the bill in committee.

If all this Tea Party energy were focused on getting every Congressman to co-sponsor Representative Shadegg's bill, Judicial Committee Chairman John Conyers could not kill the bill. He would be forced to allow the bill to go to the House floor for a recorded vote.

Co-sponsorship of this bill - HR450 -- The Enumerated Powers Act - should become the litmus test that qualifies every candidate in every election. If your Representative and Senators will not co-sponsor this bill, or provide an acceptable written reason why they will not, those elected officials should be targeted for replacement.

A constituent of Tennessee Representative John Tanner called his elected official with a request that Representative Tanner co-sponsor HR450, and to confirm by e-mail that he would co-sponsor the bill or explain why he would not. To be sure the Congressman got the message the constituent sent the same question via e-mail through an e-mail form on the Congressman's web site.

The reply from the Congressman thanked the constituent for the letter and offered the usual mealy-mouthed reply that the Congressman would keep the constituent's concerns in mind if the bill came to a vote.

The constituent tried to reply to the congressman's e-mail, but the congressman's system blocked all replies. Another phone call to the congressman's office produced a staffer who said the Congressman would "probably not" co-sponsor the bill, and that he would not explain why.

Hundreds of people around the country had a similar experience with their congressman. This kind of arrogant indifference to the wishes of the people who pay the salaries of these representatives is what brought the throngs of people into the streets this week. Finally, there may be enough outrage growing to really make a difference.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2