Challenger to Betsy Markey Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
Colorado’s 4th district U.S. Representative Betsy Markey made a rather desperate political move this week, joining the the Blue Dog Democrats at a time when the popularity of the Blue Dogs may be at an all-time low, due to their role in helping the Republicans obstruct the implementation of the agenda that gained the Democrats the White House, along with an increased majority in the House and Senate, in the 2008 elections. Markey’s embrace of Bush Era Republican policies hasn’t made her less vulnerable to Republican challenge. On the contrary, it’s been an invitation to Republicans who want her seat. Already, four Republicans have lined up for the chance to take Markey on in 2010.
It seems that the Colorado GOP regards Markey as such an easy target that it isn’t going to much trouble to recruit intellectual heavyweights to challenge her. One of the Republicans already in the race, Dean Madere, shows problems grasping basic information in the Constitution that’s easily available for any literate American to read.
Introducing his positions on political issues he regards as relevant to the campaign, Madere writes,
“We should go back to the small and limited government that our founders intended and follow the Constitution as it was written. The Constitution only changes through the mechanisms provided for in Article Five, not through interpretation. Too many times, we look to government as the answer to problems that it has no business getting into. In addition, we look to the wrong levels of government to solve problems. (Federal getting into State issues, States getting into local, etc). The Federal Government must stay within the powers provided to it by our Constitution.”
If Dean Madere had actually read the Constitution, he would understand that this statement is internally inconsistent. Madere says that the Congress ought to follow the Constitution as it was written, and that the Federal Government must stay within the powers provided by the Constitution. But then, he also complains that the government is regarded as the answer for America’s problems too often. He says he wants “small and limited government”.
Actually, that’s not what the founders of the U.S.A. intended, and it’s not how the Constitution is written. In the very first part of the Constitution, the large scope of federal government powers is made immediately clear. The authors and signers of the Constitution agreed that the federal government should have the job of providing for the “general welfare”. The preamble states,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
If that’s not clear enough, the big government powers of Congress are established once again in Section 8 of the Constitution:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”
After this opening clause of Section 8, even more powers of Congress are established. The founders’ intention, and the Constitution’s authorization, of a large, powerful federal government is right there, in plain print. Even in the area of the 13 original states, the general welfare was a pretty big deal, requiring a strong central government rather than the loose, state-based system set up under the Articles of Confederation. Yet, Dean Madere is promoting a small federal government, and increased power to the states, as if the Constitution were never passed.
It’s bizarre that Madere is citing the Constitution as the source of his opinion that the federal government of the United States should be small and relatively powerless. Of course, Madere never bothers to say which specific clauses in the Constitution are the basis of his opinion. It seems that Madere hasn’t formed this opinion on his own, but is merely copying assertions made by others aligned with the Republican Party.
It’s true that the Constitution does provide restraints on the federal government, not by restricting its size, but by providing the people, citizens and non-citizens alike, legal rights. Madere doesn’t seem to have a clear understanding of these rights within the Constitution either, making claims of limited rights such as, “We have a freedom of religion, not from religion.”
Once again, Madere’s loose command of logic is exposed. Madere never explains how freedom of religion can be maintained if people can be required to partake of religious beliefs and rites. Besides that, the First Amendment and the original body of the Constitution do provide for a freedom from religion, forbidding the governmental establishment of religion and protecting people from religious tests for public office.
Betsy Markey’s best hope for re-election is that her eventual Republican challenger won’t show any more sense than Dean Madere has demonstrated so far.
Actually, you might ought to revisit the Constitution and learn how it came about and stop listening to the people who have reinterpreted it. The preamble states “promote the general welfare,” not provide for the general welfare. Big difference. If, as you say, the opening paragraph of Section 8 proves the Federal Government was intended to be big and powerful because it once again mentions the “general welfare,” then explain why the founders laid out certain enumerated powers. That paragraph was meant to make sure that when the Federal Government used the powers, delegated to it by the States and the people, it stayed within certain bounds. That paragraph was meant to limit even further the powers the Federal Government was given, not expand them.
Also, it is a freedom of religion, not from religion. If it was freedom from religion, then there would not be any religion allowed in this country. The government is prohibited from establishing a national religion that everyone would have to support.
Jacque, how can anyone have freedom of religion if they’re not free to choose individually to be free from religion as whole?
Can you explain how things like health care reform don’t promote the general welfare?
Freedom OF religion means just that, freedom of, to practice or not. You have the choice. You practice any religion in this country you want to practice, atheism included. Freedom FROM religion means that you can’t practice any religion.
The Federal Government can not force anyone to practice a specific religion like they did in England. There, The Church of England, which was completely supported by the people of England and it was the only religion people were allowed to practice openly and freely. The 1st Amendment was only intended to make sure there was never a Church of the United States that every citizen would have to follow and would be fully funded by the people.
I never said that health care reform doesn’t promote the General Welfare. I said that the “general welfare” clause, as it is called, does not give the Federal Government the power to do anything as long as it can be construed to be for the “general welfare.” I said that the “general welfare” clause actually further LIMITS the power of the Federal Government. The first paragraph of Section 8 is meant to provide guidelines that the Federal Government must adhere to when involking the use of the enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8. If the “general welfare” clause was meant to allow the Federal Government power to do ANYTHING as long as it was for the general welfare, why spell out the specific powers that the States and the People were actually delegating to the Federal Government? That being said, health care is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government, therefore, it falls to the States and to the People, per the 10th Amendment.
I believe in the concept that individuals should have the most power and then it goes down from there. The people are the base of the triangle, then they allow local & county governments to have some power, like to provide for waste and sewage removal, upkeep of local and county roads and bridges, local law enforcement and fire fighters and schools. The states are delegated powers to provide for state highways and bridges, national guard, state police and such. The Federal Government is at the pinnacle of the triangle, the weakest part of the triangle, with even less powers. This is what the Founders wanted, a Government that would never be strong enough to take rights and liberties from the People. We have given up far too much to our government. People have become happy to allow the government to provide for them rather than provide for themselves. The problem is, at some point, those that are providing for those that are receiving are going to be out-numbered. Some might even give up and join those that are receiving.
I also believe that further government control and intrusion in the healthcare industry will be much more harmful that helpful. There are some regulations on insurance companies currently that reduce competition, which cause price to go up. Allow all health insurance to be purchased across state lines. There are over 1,300 insurance companies in this country and only a handful are allowed to sell in each state. Removing that regulation would open up the field to all insurance companies and they will have to compete against each other, which would increase choice to people and therefore prices would fall. Tort reform, and all the costs that go with it, is another thing that should be done. But, whatever we do, it is not the job of the Federal Government because it is not in the enumerated powers of Section 8 and is therefore, a job of the States or the People.