Utah's Representatives

You may have noticed that there has been very little written here on Utah’sRepresentatives.com about Utah’s 3rd congressional district representative Jason Chaffetz.  That’s probably because we like him, and he has done very little that we disagree with.  The recent release of TSA documents on an incident involving Chaffetz passing through airport security is an exception.

Congressman Chaffetz claimed he was singled out for refusing to participate in the full body scanner, and for his efforts to ban the use of the technology.  The write ups of 8 separate TSA employees involved in the incident tell a different story.  From what the documents say, it seems Chaffetz was acting like a 7 year old kid who hasn’t had his nap.  He reportedly swore at one security employee and childishly criticized another while claiming the whole time that he was being singled out.  He also repeatedly asked, “do you know who I am?”

I don’t know whether this shows Rep. Chaffetz is already being poisoned by Washington, or if he was just having a bad day, but I do know that we have to keep a close eye on our representatives, EVEN THE ONES WE LIKE.

See Related Articles:
ABC News
KSL News

Is Chaffetz Overreacting to Use of WII Technology in Airport Security?

It seems Senator Bob Bennett’s support of TARP (troubled asset relief program) is paying off in a big way.  Bennett’s 2nd largest donor for the 2010 election cycle is CitiGroup, who has donated over $30,000 to the Senator’s 2010 campaign.  Citi also coincidentally received $45 billion from TARP and other programs.  Bennett’s seat on the Senate Banking committee makes him very influential in bank bailouts.

Senator Bennett has also received donations from other banks that were given TARP money:

• JP Morgan Chase – $20,000
• Bank of America – $18,000
• Freddie Mac – $16,000
• Morgan Stanley – $13,000
• Fannie Mae – $12,000

Check out this Salt Lake Tribune article for more information.

James Madison, considered “the father” of our constitution, explained in the Federalist Papers no. 41 why the wording in Article I section 8, “provide for the…general welfare,” does not grant congress broad powers as some have interpreted it.  This is kind of long, but it is important, so I thought I would include the explanation in its entirety: (bold and italics added for emphasis)

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. ” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS.

Click here for part 1 of this series “Article I Section 8″

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is specific on the powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Are Utah’s Senators Bennett and Hatch and Representatives Bishop, Matheson, and Chaffetz upholding the constitution by voting against any bill that doesn’t fall under one of these specific powers?  Our founders even re-emphasized this point in the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Click here for Part II of this series “James Madison’s explanation of the ‘General Welfare’ clause

Senators Bob Bennett & Orrin Hatch of Utah both voted in favor of the confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (in short “Regulatory Czar”).  Is this what they think their constituents want?

It’s not only that Cass Sunstein believes “we should ban hunting,” or his belief that animals have the right to sue in court; It is his perverted view of the constitution (see his book Radicals in Robes, especially chapter 9 – “Guns, God, and More”)  and his expertise in using existing laws to tweak regulations until his vision for America is accomplished (see Sunstein’s book Nudge).

What are Bennett & Hatch doing?!

With the exception of Jim Matheson, Utah’s Senators and Congressmen don’t make it easy to find information on their appropriation requests (aka earmarks or pork).  Here are the links to that information for fiscal year 2010 (I’m currently doing some research to find any ties between campaign donations and earmarks):

• Senator Orrin Hatch
• Senator Bob Bennett
• Representative Rob Bishop
• Representative Jim Matheson
• Representative Jason Chaffetz has not made any earmark requests so there is no information.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz’ Provo Town Hall Meeting’s venue has been changed to the Covey Center for the Arts (425 West Center St, Provo 84601).  It will still be Tuesday August 25 at 7pm.