Congressman Tom Perriello: Oath of Office

I wrote a letter to my 5th District Congressman this evening. While I emailed a slightly abbreviated version to him, here is what I wrote in full:

Dear Congressman Perriello,

I contacted your office in DC today to follow up on my question that I posed to you at the Fluvanna Town Hall Meeting. The man who spoke before me pointed out the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Bill referencing the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. He also pointed out that the 10th Amendment supports the idea of the federal government being limited in power to what is stated in the Constitution.

I considered the fact that this man spoke before me (I had no idea what he was going to say) and that there was a break in constituent comments/questions giving you an opportunity to respond to him was an act of God. Your response indicated that you were aware of constitutional issues concerning this bill but you were "willing to let the courts fight it out". Then it was my turn to speak.

I reminded you that you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if you knew that there were constitutional issues concerning this piece of legislation, I asked why you were willing to let the courts fight it out. After addressing specific items in the bill and my personal concerns as a small business owner and tax-paying citizen, I asked the following question, "Knowing that this legislation without a shadow of a doubt is in violation of the US Constitution, who and/or what gives you the power to take away our God-given rights to life and liberty by casting anything but a "no" vote concerning this bill?"

To this you never replied.

So, I called your office in Washington today (9/4/09) and spoke with one of your staffers. I explained that I never got a response to my question. I said I could not understand why you would be willing to "let the courts fight it out" if you indeed recognized that this was unconstitutional. Perhaps you don't feel it is unconstitutional. Your staffer explained to me that there was an elastic clause at the end of Article 1 Section 8 that gives you the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper. However, I had a copy of the Constitution in my hand and read him the complete clause. It states,

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all the Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Please note that it says "...the foregoing Powers..." referencing the enumerated powers laid out in the previous clauses. It also says "...the Powers vested by this Constitution..." reiterating that the powers being referred to are in the Constitution. It seems pretty clear to me that these are qualifiers in this "elastic clause". If you can make any law you feel like, then why did the founders lay out the specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 (to establish and maintain an army and navy, to establish post offices, to create courts, to regulate commerce between the states, to declare war, and to levy taxes for these purposes)?

Furthermore, your staffer mentioned "checks and balances" and that the Supreme Court was set up to be one of those when it comes to determining Constitutional power. I agree. However, the Legislative branch is a check as well. You don't have the right to do whatever you want and expect either the President or SCOTUS to step up and keep you in line. You swear an oath to uphold the Constitution for the purpose of stating your intention to act in a manner that supports the US Constitution. If you are willing to vote on a piece of legislation that knowingly conflicts with the Constitution, how are you upholding it?

Now if you honestly believe that the US Constitution gives you the power to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of providing a government-run health care option or dictating how the private sector will conduct its affairs, then please explain to me where you find that power listed in that binding document.

I also explained to your staffer the following, which I would like you to be aware of as well:

There are a few lawsuits pending right now in your district (Fluvanna County) as well as at the state level concerning the actions of our local Board of Supervisors who were willing to "let the courts decide" when they were served twice with a petition of more than 10% of the voters in the county requesting a referendum on the formation of a Joint Water Authority. The law gives the people the right to petition their government for this specific issue (formation of a Joint Water Authority)...they did it twice, but the County Attorney advised the Board to disregard the petitions due to a legal technicality in his mind. Now five months later, we, the taxpayers are still paying for the Board's "defense" in multiple courts since a citizen rose up to challenge the Board's decision to throw away our petitions...*and* we're paying for the formation of the Joint Water Authority. What if the courts decide the petitions were valid and a referendum should have been called? It is too late to have the referendum in the November election, so a special election will have to be called. This is going to cost even more money to the taxpayer. And this is a result of our governing body letting the courts fight it out.

Sir, you have an obligation to the people whom you represent as a US Congressman. You must uphold the US Constitution. The Constitution does not give you the power to make this Health Care Reform law. You know it. While a threat to not vote for you in November may not mean much to you (you already lost my vote when you voted "yes" on the Cap & Trade bill), I would hope doing what's right in the sight of God would matter more.

How can you in good conscience go against the US Constitution when you swore an oath to uphold it?

Sincerely,
Carrie Wigal