A Grassroots Group that Doesn't Make Sense

Usually I don't get political, but I just cannot believe how ridiculous some of the arguments of the Tea Party Patriots are. I want you to be somewhat informed, so here is the link to their homepage: Tea Party Patriots. Their mission statement reads: "The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. " Their slogan is "Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, and Free Markets."

I first heard about the Tea Party from Dr. Lyons, a political science professor. He doesn't like them very much, but I didn't let that phase me. I established my opinion on the Tea Party just last week, when our campus newspaper, the Statesman, printed an article about the Cache Valley Tea Party Rally. Here is the link to the article: Tea Party in Cache Valley. I will now begin to go through the things that initially ticked me off about the Tea Party.

Patti Bateman spoke at the rally about how the American people have not supported the Constitution and have allowed government power to expand without limit. She quoted Thomas Jefferson as saying, "In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." She then tells how the "Constitution was designed to limit our government to keep them in their proper place."

I disagree for a few reasons. The Constitution was created not to limit the powers of government. It was created to form a government that was actually operational. The Bill of Rights limited the powers of government. Look them up and see what the limits on government are. Yes, there are limits to certain powers of branches in government, often called checks and balances. These were put in place to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

Why was the Constitution necessary? Well, dear Tea Party Patriots, you seem to have forgotten about the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation, the government had almost no power. It could not impose taxes (a response to British taxes that so angered the colonists). It was run by a single legislative body that could not enforce its laws. Basically, it was there to raise an army and have a body that could negotiate in times of war. The Articles of Confederation created a week government body with limited power. In my opinion, the Tea Party seeks a return to the Articles of Confederation.

Another speaker at the Cache Valley rally was Scott Bradley, who is running for Utah Senator against Bob Bennett. I am not going to vote for Bradley. Anyway, Bradley told listeners that the nation was in danger, and the only way to return to peace was to "adhere to the Constitution" as the founders of the Constitution did.

Oh candidate Bradley, do you know nothing about the history of our country? The Constitution was created as a purposefully ambiguous document, thanks to Clause 18 in the section about Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). Congress was able "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." What does this mean? It means that Congress can make laws that the members of it to be best for the United States (yes, that includes the Health Care Bill). This resulted in problems right from the get go.

Alexander Hamilton, a representative from New York, is often cited as the top Federalist. He was there at the Constitutional Convention. Federalists believed in a strong government, or a loose interpretation of the Constitution. This meant, for Federalists, if the Constitution didn't directly forbid it, the government could do it. Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury, encouraged manufacturing, and believed that a reasonable National Debt was all right.

Thomas Jefferson is often considered the head honcho of Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, therefore not truly a Founder. (Therefore, the people in the Tea Party cannot cite Jefferson as a source for what the Founders of the Constitution intended.) Jefferson and other Democratic-Republicans wanted a government with little control. They supported a strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning that government should only do what was expressly allowed in the Constitution. During Monroe's presidency, also a D-R, the government was only delivering mail. There are many criticisms of Jefferson as a loose constructionist, especially for the Louisiana Purchase. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can purchase land? No where.

So, if the Tea Party would like a return to the government of the early 1800s, and have their mail delivered even less, say, only on Thursdays, they can use Jefferson's philosophy as a source for all wisdom on the Constitution.

To be fair to the Tea Party, something I do like about their arguments from the rally here in Cache Valley was a call for citizens to be informed and to hold to their values, not just follow the voting trends. I do like this. People are generally uninformed. Such as the Tea Party about the history of the Constitution.

This Tea Party rally was held near to Tax Day. I heard that T-E-A stands for "Taxed Enough Already". This is something that makes me think that the Tea Party really wants a return to the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution, which purposefully gives the Congress the power to tax Americans.

May I remind you that taxes are good to an extent? They give you new roads, safety, and other programs, such as reducing emissions, etc. Plus, those programs funded by taxes employ thousands of people. Taxes also make sure that your kids go to a better school than if there were no taxes. And, by increasing taxes, the budget deficit will be less. If there are budget surpluses instead of deficits, economic stability is more of a reality.

Beyond Utah's borders, there are more problems about the Tea Party. For example, in Oklahoma, Tea Party leaders would love to begin a state militia to protect the state from, what they believe to be, improper use of federal authority (link to this article). Does anyone else have a problem with this plan? Those who support this plan, which would be implemented within the year, argue that it would be fully legal because it would be done through the state legislature. I thought the federal government was supposed to be above the state government. Didn't we fight a war in the 1860s in which states in the U.S. believed their state didn't need to support the Union? And they seceded from the United States? I could give other examples from U.S. history about when people formed militias to oppose the government and they were stopped. I don't mean to say that some of those uprisings were justified. But some events, such as the Civil War, are justified to keep the United States united.

Beyond my own criticisms of the Tea Party, there are more people much more informed about their arguments. However, I believe that my arguments against the Tea Party are valid. The Tea Party Patriots are not really supporting the Constitution, and the arguments that they bring up have existed during the entirety of that document's existence. There is no right or wrong way to interpret the Constitution. It is purposefully vague. During different Presidential administrations and different Congressional majorities, there have been different interpretations of the Constitution.

Americans do need to be more informed. But, they need to look at the inconsistencies in certain arguments. People cannot claim to be the "true" source on the Constitution. The Tea Party movement just doesn't make sense.

You can bet that I will continue to follow the Tea Party in the news.