|
Mike Lee on Government Reform
|
|
Congress constitutionally lacks general police powers
The Constitution did nothing to abandon the widely shared consensus that our national government should be vested only with limited and enumerated powers. In fact, it explicitly preserved that understanding.
There was not--and to this day there still is not--any provision authorizing Congress to simply pass any law it sees fit.Unlike legislative bodies in other countries,
Congress does not have a general-purpose license to legislate for the "good of the public"; it must act pursuant to an affirmative constitutional grant of authority. In other words, Congress lacks what jurists and political scientists characterize
as "general police powers." And it lacks such powers by explicit design.
This original understanding was reverently observed for nearly a century and a half. This limited purpose understanding began to crumble during the era of the New Deal.
Source: Now Or Never, by Sen. Jim DeMint, p. 63-64
, Jan 10, 2012
Limited government must come politically, not judicially
In April 1937, the Supreme Court [decided on a] new approach: the courts will essentially leave Congress alone--giving federal legislators the liberty to determine and police the extent of their own powers.Guided by this exceedingly permissive
standard, which remains in effect to this day, Congress has been steadily expanding the scope of its authority since 1937.
For a variety of reasons, the Supreme Court is unlikely to retreat from this standard. We therefore cannot rely on the Supreme
Court to restore a constitutional form of government to America. But fortunately, there is another way of recovering what has been lost.
Restoring constitutionally limited government must, I believe, be accomplished through the political process and
not through the courts. The fact that federal courts have been disinclined to enforce that obligation since 1937 does not mean that the requirement no longer exists.
Yet, such debate & discussion is unlikely to occur in Congress until voters demand it.
Source: Now Or Never, by Sen. Jim DeMint, p. 65-66
, Jan 10, 2012
Antidote to federal "mission creep" is enumerated powers
The antidote to the perpetual expansion and "mission creep" of the federal government is found in the enumerated-powers doctrine--that is, the notion that the Constitution gives the federal government only limited, enumerated powers, while reserving all
other powers to the states. This doctrine could serve as the basis for a new, limited-government political movement - one focusing on the Constitution's bedrock, party-neutral principles of federalism.Still, in 2009, I doubted any candidate could get
elected on such a platform. I thought voters would be bored by talk about things like Article I, Section 8 (where the Constitution lists nearly every power possessed by Congress), the Tenth Amendment (explaining that powers not granted to Congress are
reserved to the states), textualism (a strict, literal reading of the Constitution), and originalism (a reading that focuses on the founding generation's understanding of each word and phrase at the time it was added to the Constitution).
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 5-6
, Jul 18, 2011
Constitution says Congress is not about making life better
The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to pass any and every piece of legislation it deems necessary to make life "better" or more "fair." Nor can it fairly be read to empower Congress to:
- nationalize our nation's healthcare, car manufacturing, or banking industries.
- create a cradle-to-grave entitlement system.
- tell American citizens where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it.
- stamp out economic disparities among
Americans by "spreading the wealth around" or by any other method.
No matter how great the idea, and no matter how pressing the perceived need,
Congress may not legislate in any area in which it is not explicitly authorized to act; power in all those areas is vested in the states.
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 27
, Jul 18, 2011
Citizens need to hold elected representatives accountable
If we want to cut our federal government down to its proper size, we have to vote differently. We simply can't afford to continue re-electing members of Congress who interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that obliterates the crucial distinction between
federal power (which is limited) and state power (which is relatively open-ended). We have to repopulate Congress with men and women who understand the state-federal distinction and will fight to defend it. Specifically, we as citizens need to do
3 things:- Learn the language of limited government found in the Constitution.
- Share that knowledge with our freedom-loving friends and family members.
-
Hold our elected representatives accountable when they fail to respect that language.
In other words, we need to restore the constitutional debate to Congress, one senator and one representative at a time.
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 39-40
, Jul 18, 2011
Make "no" the default vote on all spending measures
The compromises and negotiations needed to keep the legislative process moving will always result in spending packages that fund numerous programs. But some of the damage could be mitigated if members of
Congress, at the urging of their constituents, would make "no" their default vote on all spending measures.
In other words, constituents should demand that their senators and representatives stop approving spending bills simply because they contain certain items they support; if the bill contains other things they don't support,
they should vote against it.Many members of Congress would adhere to this strategy if a large, vocal segment of their constituency demanded it and voted on the issue.
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 61
, Jul 18, 2011
Always ask, should program be federal or state?
Even when a program is clearly within the rightful scope of government, we must ask whether it falls within the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government, or within the broad, undefined powers of state governments.Each of America's
50 state governments is sovereign within its own sphere of authority and is not a mere political subdivision of a single, national sovereign. Given that the most basic purpose of government is to maintain order and prevent anarchy, the federal government
should go to great lengths to prevent the kind of conflict and confusion that emerges when one sovereign government steps on another's domain.
Because Congress, unlike the states, is vastly exceeding its authority today, it is
Congress's powers that must be curtailed. Otherwise the distinction between federal and state power will continue to fade, risking a dangerous clash between the federal government and aggrieved state representatives.
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 90-91
, Jul 18, 2011
Reclaim right to constitutionally limited government
Granato charged that Lee is too extreme for Utah as a darling of the tea party. But Lee said most Utahns cheer his push to return to constitutionally limited government."Utahns have a real opportunity this year to either elect a mainstream candidate
or an extreme candidate," Granato said.Lee said that his views match Utahns who "are reclaiming their right to constitutionally limited government. We have to focus on limiting the size, scope, reach and power of the federal government."
Source: Salt Lake Tribune coverage of 2010 Utah Senate debate
, Sep 17, 2010
Reduce government bureaucracy to improve economy
The answer to an economic downturn is not a government stimulus, but a reduction in government regulation and bureaucracy to allow the natural forces of our private enterprise system to rebound without undue interference.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.mikelee2010.com, "Issues"
, Jul 19, 2010
Limit congressional terms to 12 years
The runaway growth of the federal government will continue as long as we retain a system that assures the existence of lifetime politicians. A career member of Congress inevitably will come to believe that that body has the answer to all social problems.
The Constitution should be amended to limit service in each house of Congress to 12 years.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.mikelee2010.com, "Issues"
, Jul 19, 2010
Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.
Lee signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 1. Protect the Constitution:
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA01 on Jul 8, 2010
Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.
Lee signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington:
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality,
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA05 on Jul 8, 2010
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.
Lee signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 9. Stop the Pork:
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA09 on Jul 8, 2010
Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.
Lee co-sponsored Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act
Congressional summary:: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act: Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, for determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status as an organization operated exclusively for social welfare to apply to such determinations after enactment of this Act. Prohibits any regulation, or other ruling, not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to such standards and definitions.
Proponent's argument in favor (Heritage Action, Feb. 26, 2014): H.R. 3865 comes in the wake of an attack on the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a "facts and circumstances" test to determine what constitutes "political activity" by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test.
IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.
Text of sample IRS letter to Tea Party organizations:We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for exemption. Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or officer whose name is listed on your application.
- Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums or other events at which candidates running for public offices are invited to speak?
- Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation?
- Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?
- Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?
Source: H.R.3865 & S.2011 14-S2011 on Feb 11, 2014
President Trump not guilty of inciting insurrection.
Lee voted NAY removing President Trump from office for inciting insurrection
GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:
The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.
Legislative Outcome:
Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)
Source: Congressional vote 21-HR24S on Jan 11, 2021
Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Lee voted NAY Impeachment of President Trump
RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included- Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
- With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House,
which the President of Ukraine sought.
- Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:- Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
- defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
- and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections.
Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019
Page last updated: Dec 28, 2021