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

Perriello Fluvanna Town Hall Meeting Speech

Last night, August 17th, Congressman Perriello held a Town Hall Meeting at the Fluvanna Middle School in Fork Union. I along with hundreds of citizens from the area attended. After waiting over an hour in line to speak, I had my turn at the podium.

The full text of my prepared speech is below. While I believe everything I had to say was important, I felt the need to cut out some of it in order to save time and be effective in what I was trying to ultimately convey. The sections I cut are included below but the words in red are what I chose to say while standing at the microphone.

The person who spoke directly ahead of me was the first in a long line to mention that this bill was unconstitutional and the 1oth amendment confirmed it. He was surprised that this had not come up yet. Perriello responded to his comments stating that this had come up in other Town Halls and that while there was definitely an issue concerning its constitutionality, that was something that could be fought out in the courts and ultimately taken to the Supreme Court.

I did a little research on your background and found you are a Yale graduate of Law, and you have been involved in community organizing because of your concerns over social injustices. It is to that experience I would like to make my appeal.

First I appreciate your concerns for social injustice. I agree we need to get more involved in our communities as a whole. As Christians, we are called to "Love our neighbor as ourselves"...I believe it is our Christian duty to help those in need.

The problem we've seen over the years is the transition from individuals voluntarily working in an organized fashion to help their fellow citizens to federal government agencies providing these services, mandating all law-abiding, income-producing citizens to pay for these services. While we thought we were doing a good thing by collectively pooling tax dollars to fund such noble causes as social services, we have created a monster. We have not only created generations dependent on the state, but we also have burdened the American people through taxation without representation (with all of these bureaucratic agencies, created by the federal legislative branch, unaccountable to the American people) and less-than-stellar, barely-surviving services (such as Social Security and Medicare). This is a huge disservice to our communities.

We are all created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible. God is our source, sir...not the federal government. Our charitable work must begin in our own homes and in our own communities, not dictated to us from top levels of government.

Getting back to "health care reform"...I admit we have issues in our current health care industry that need addressing, but the solutions are not found in the charitable contributions of Congress.

Upon taking office you swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Therefore, if you are presented with a piece of legislation that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the powers identified in the Constitution, then you are compelled by your oath to vote "no" regardless of how we feel about it on the simple grounds that it is unconstitutional.

While we may have personal convictions to serve our communities who are lacking in need, it is not the role of the federal government to assure affordable, quality health care coverage for every person living within our borders. This power is nowhere to be found within the United States Constitution, specifically it is not listed in Article 1 Section 8 where your Congressional Powers are laid out. And the 10th Amendment confirms this when it addresses the powers that are not delegated to the United States (meaning the Federal Government) by the Constitution, as being reserved to the states.

[I paraphrased these two paragraphs above and interjected some other thoughts since the person ahead of me had just addressed this. I specifically questioned why the Congressman felt it was okay to vote for something unconstitutional, leaving it up to the courts to fight it out especially since he swore the oath to uphold the Constitution in the first place.]

For your convenience here is a copy of the Constitution along with a copy of Federalist Paper #41 written by James Madison where he discusses these particular powers and explains that the often-misrepresented "common Defence and general Welfare" clause is a general phrase that is clearly defined by the detailed phrases following it in the Constitution. Congress is limited to those powers listed in that document. I encourage you to read both of these documents and pass them along to your colleagues in DC...I promise these are much shorter than this health care bill.

Now since you are holding these Town Hall meetings for the sole purpose of hearing the concerns/questions of your constituents on this particular bill, I would like to share just a few of mine:

I am a 40-year-old wife, mother of four (ages 14, 5,4 & 2) and a tax-paying small business owner. I'm a college graduate and in the past have worked for temporary employment agencies as well as small, mid-size and large corporations. During that time I have been insured, uninsured and uninsurable (due to becoming pregnant). Presently I have a Health Savings Account along with a low premium, high deductible Health insurance policy to cover my family.

While I choose to have this current plan vs. no insurance at all, I am disgusted with the idea that this bill will rob me of my choice. Section 401.59B on Page 167 indicates that I as an individual will be required to have "acceptable" health care coverage or else the federal government is going to fine me. If I choose to pay all of my medical expenses out of pocket without the assistance of anyone else (whether it be the government or some insurance company), I am going to be penalized by my own government?

Also, Section 313 on Pages 149-150 indicates that I as an employer must provide all of my employees regardless of whether they are full or part-time workers with the public option or else I'll be fined a certain percentage. And if I am successful in my business and hire more employees, creating new jobs, pushing me up to the next bracket, then I'll be fined at a higher rate.

So, not only am I being punished for paying my own bills, I am also being punished for not paying someone else's?

[Congressman Perriello had already indicated several times he had an issue with the mandates on individuals and small businesses. I wanted to make sure he knew I had an issue with it as well.]

Concerning my family, my husband and I are adamantly opposed to injecting our children with unnatural vaccinations. However, if we were to participate in this public option, then the vaccinations that the government deems necessary will be REQUIRED according to Section 1711 on Page 764. If we choose not to participate, we still have to pay to force others to get these shots regardless of their personal convictions.

My husband and I are even more adamantly opposed to killing innocent babies whether they are still in their mothers' womb or not. Yet according to Section 1713 on page 768 there is a "nurse home visitation service" which will cater to those who seek "improving maternal or child health and pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies". Increasing birth intervals between pregnancies? Sounds like birth control to me...it also sounds like an open door to abortion.

[I omitted the above paragraph because Perriello already indicated he would not vote in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions. And I omitted the next paragraph because I wanted to drive home my main point without going all over the place.]

While these items I have just mentioned are just a few that really bother me personally about this bill (a few others include the rationing of health care, end-of-life planning, national health ID card, government committees and task forces, Federal government mandated school-based health clinics integrated into the school environment, surcharges for high income individuals, and government involvement in marriage & family therapy) the absolute number one biggest problem I have with all of this combined with the bailouts & federal acquisitions of private industry is that this whole scheme wreaks of socialism. In this particular case the US Congress is proposing to tax a portion of its people in order to exercise mandatory health care coverage, establish more government bureacracy, and ration health care as it deems necessary amongst the entire population...including non-US citizens! You and your colleagues are seriously considering nationalized health care, forcing the American people to succomb to the government for its health needs.

I understand we need health care reform, but the idea of the federal government taking over the health care industry in America is absolutely obscene. [Many people cheered at this statement.]

My question to you, Congressman is, "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?"

One local FoxNews affiliate captured a portion of my question on her news report (the underlined text above). Unfortunately she failed to recognize my whole point that this bill is unconstitutional. Also, it would have been nice to include the statement before my question since it was so widely received. But I'm just glad it received some attention.

General Welfare Clearly Defined

According to the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 (the Congressional Powers), it seems many (if not most) of our Congressmen have a clear misunderstanding of their powers. There is a phrase, "general Welfare" that justifies legislation such as the proposed Obama Health Care Plan (HR 3200) and the recent house-passed Cap & Trade Bill (HR 2454)...at least in the minds of those who are actually considering or voted in favor of these atrocities.

However, the entire clause that includes this phrase is limited to the following powers laid out in the remainder of that section. This is clearly stated in Federalist paper #41 written by James Madison, the author of the US Constitution:

"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." [emphasis mine]

Madison, the author of the US Constitution, explains that the first phrase in section 8 is a "general phrase" and all of the following phrases, aka "particulars" (that begin with "To") explain and qualify that general phrase. Certainly that makes sense to me when you hear it's intention explained like this. Read Article 1 Section 8 yourself:

"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; 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 an 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, dock-Yards, 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." [emphasis mine]

How is Congress expected "to establish post offices and post roads"? They need money to do that. How about "to provide and maintain a Navy"? They need money for that too. Where does the money come from? The "Taxes, Duties, imposts and Excises" they lay and collect and the "Money on the credit of the United States" they borrow.

See? The power to lay taxes & such are set in place in order to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (such as the Navy) and general Welfare (such as the post offices and post roads) of the United States.

Health Care coverage is not listed as one of the powers, neither are Environmental and/or Energy concerns therefore these are not considered "general Welfare" as far as the author of the Constitution meant. As a matter of fact, there are lots of "coverages" and "concerns" Congress has legislated that are simply unconstitutional, but we'll save those for another day.