House Session 2011 - 11 - 18 - 14 - 06 - 18 - 15 - 14 - 08

MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO TAKE FROM THE SPEAKER'S TABLE THE BILL H.R. 3321, WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS THERETO, TO THAT END, THAT THE HOUSE CONCUR WITH THE THE THE BILL AND THE SENATE AMENDMENT. H.R. 3321, AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE HOSTING OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE 34TH AMERICA'S CUP -- THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH THE READING. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE READING IS DISPENSED. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST IS GRANTED. RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE TABLE. THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN REQUESTS FOR ONE MINUTE SPEECHES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS RISE? MINUTE. REVISE AND EXTEND. WITHOUT OBJECTION. MADAM SPEAKER, AS THE LARGEST MANUFACTURING DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY, AND AS PART OF A JOBS PLAN THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY, I'M FOCUSED ON MANUFACTURING THROUGHOUT NOT ONLY THE COUNTRY BUT SPECIFICALLY ILLINOIS' 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY I HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, OR STEM. SO THAT THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED ARE THOSE STUDENTS WHO WILL BE ENTERING THE WORK FORCE CAN LEARN NEW SKILLS AND GO ON TO THE FIELD WITH GOOD, HIGH-PAYING JOBS. IN MY DISTRICT, I'M WORKING WITH HIGH SCHOOLS AND MANUFACTURERS ON RECRUITING STUDENTS TO GO INTO STEM FIELDS. WE ARE WORKING ON CONNECTING STUDENTS WITH MANUFACTURERS, WHO ARE LOOKING FOR EMPLOYEES. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE EFFORTS OF MADUSA CONSULTING, ILLINOIS WORK NET, AND MANUFACTURING CAREERS INCORPORATED FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP IN BRINGING THE MANUFACTURING JOBS FAIR TO DISTRICT 214 FIELD HOUSE IN ARLINGTON HEIGHTS THIS UPCOMING DECEMBER 5. I WANT TO ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT STEM EDUCATION AND TO WORK WITH THEIR LOCAL BUSINESSES ON HOSTING THESE IMPORTANT JOBS FAIRS AND MANUFACTURING WORKSHOPS. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL IF WE WANT TO GET AMERICA BACK TO WORK. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. ARE THERE FURTHER ONE MINUTES? FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS RISE? TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I ROSE TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE TO THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR COLLEAGUES CAN SEE THE VALUE OF A VIGOROUS DEBATE. I APPLAUD THE RULES COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING US THE TIME TO DELIBERATE ON THE ISSUE OF A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. IT'S FOR THE VERY REASON THAT MY GOOD FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE JUST SPOKE ABOUT, OUR YOUNG PEOPLE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR JOBS. I JOIN HIM IN FINDING PATHWAYS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE TRANSITIONED INTO JOBS AND OTHERS INTO JOBS ALONG WITH A COLLEGE EDUCATION. THE NORTH FOREST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TEXAS DESIGNATED TO BE CLOSED BY GOVERNOR PERRY, TEXAS EDUCATION, AGENCY IS TRYING TO DO JUST THAT. TO HAVE JOB TRAINING, TO HAVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND I CONGRATULATE MR. IVORY AHORN FOR GETTING SOME 7,000-PLUS SIGNATURES TO OPPOSE THE CLOSING OF THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT. A HIGH SCHOOL THAT IS ON THE VERGE OF TRAINING INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRADES AND THE SKILLS OF MANUFACTURING AND THEN BRIDGING THEN ON TO COLLEGE. WE'VE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE'VE GOT TO BUILD THE HUMAN RESOURCE AND A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT IGNORES THE NEEDS FOR PROTECTING MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND MEDICAID, BUT INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN, PROVIDING THEM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY AND -- FOR JOBS. WORKING WITH THIS CONGRESS TO INVEST WITH HUMAN RESOURCES. THE GENTLELADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO RISE? WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MR. SPEAKER, I RISE AT THAT HONOR THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. WELD COUNTY TAKES ITS NAME FROM LEWIS LED YARD WELD. WELD WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT LINCOLN AS COLORADO'S FIRST TERRITORIAL SECRETARY. ON NOVEMBER 1, 1861, THE COLORADO TERRITORIES GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIALLY ORGANIZED WELD COUNTY. THIS NOVEMBER MARKS 9150TH YEAR ANNIVERSARY. AS WITH MOST WESTERN SETTLEMENTS, WELD COUNTY HAD A SPARSE POPULATION. IT'S GOT OVER FROM A HUMBLE START AS AN AREA BASED ON COAL MINING, IT'S FLOURISHED WITH A THRIVING ECONOMY. IT'S THE TH LEADING AGRICULTURAL COUNTY IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES AND ONLY COUNTY OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA RANKED IN THE TOP FROM SMALL BUSINESSES, GREAT LAND MORE FARMING, WELD COUNTY IS ALSO HOME TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO AND THE UPONEE NATIONAL GRASS LANDS. IT'S HOME TO OVER 19 DIFFERENT TOWNS, EACH ONE WITH A UNIQUE IDENTITY THAT MAKES THIS AREA IT'S HOME TO THRIVING INTEREST PIONEERS. ONE OF MY FAVORITE EVENTS EVERY YEAR IS THE FOURTH OF JULY GREELEY STAMPEDE AND PARADE. IT REMINDS ME WHAT IT MEANS TO CALL COLORADO HOME. IT EMBODIES EVERYTHING THAT IS GREAT ABOUT HEADING WEST. AND I AM PROUD TO RECOGNIZE THEIR 150TH ANNIVERSARY. I YIELD BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLELADY FROM OHIO RISE? I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE, MR. SPEAKER. OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MR. SPEAKER, WITH THANKSGIVING APPROACHING, LET US ABOUT OUR FELLOW AMERICANS AND ASK OURSELVES THE QUESTION, WHAT WE CAN DO TO SERVE THEM THIS COMING WEEK AND INTO THE FUTURE. YOU KNOW AVERAGE INCOMES FOR AMERICANS FOR THE AVERAGE FAMILY HAS GONE DOWN ABOUT 6.7% AND WE KNOW POFFER RATES HAVE RISEN 15%. FOR ALL THOSE LISTENING TODAY AS WE LOOK ACROSS OUR COUNTRY THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO THIS WEEK AND EVERY WEEK TO HELP OUR FOOD BANKS THAT ARE SHORT ON SUPPLIES ACROSS OUR COUNTRY. EVERY CLASS, EVERY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, EVERY PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING EXTRA TO HELP THIS WEEK TO GIVE EVERY AMERICAN A THINK ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HELP A LOCAL FEEDING KITCHEN. THINK ABOUT HOW YOU MIGHT CHALLENGE YOUR SPORTS TEAM TO GO GREEN IN THE FIELDS AND COLLECT IF YOU LIVE IN THE PART OF THE COUNTRY THAT AGRICULTURE EXISTS, THE EXTRA CABBAGE AND APPLES THAT WILL BE THERE AND PLOWED UNDER IF YOU DON'T PICK THEM. ACROSS OUR COUNTRY THIS IS A YEAR WHEN AMERICANS CAN SAY TO ONE ANOTHER, HAPPY THANKSGIVING, WE BELIEVE IN YOU. WE WANT TO HELP YOU THROUGH THESE DIFFICULT TIMES. IT REACHES THE TRUE HEART OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHO KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT TO DO. AND LET'S GIVE EVERY AMERICAN A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. EVERY DAY. GOD BLESS AMERICA. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA RISE? REQUEST PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MR. SPEAKER, THIS WEEK SPEAKER BOEHNER ANNOUNCED A BILL THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED SOON TO CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH OUR JOBS ISSUE. IT'S NOT ONE THAT RAISES TAXES. IT'S NOT ONE WHICH IS GOING TO ADD TO THE DEFICIT. IT IS THE AMERICAN JOBS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY ACT WHICH WILL BE INTRODUCED SOON. IT IS AN ACT THAT IS RELATED TO THAT I PRESENTED TO THIS CHAMBER FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN A BIPARTISAN MOVE TO GET AMERICA BACK TO WORK. INSTEAD OF IMPORTING $129 BILLION WORTH OF OIL EVERY YEAR AND SENDING THEM, IT USES OUR OIL OFF OUR COAST TO CREATE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA HAS A $2 TRILLION PRICE TAG TO REPAIR OUR ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND WE ALSO STILL HAVE 14 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF WORK AND ANOTHER 10 MILLION LOOKING FOR WORK. IT'S TIME AMERICA GOT BACK TO WORK AND WE CAN DO IT WITH THIS BILL. I URGE ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO -- MAKE SURE THEIR PART OF THIS BILL WHEN IT COMES UT A ENGET AMERICANS BACK TO WORK AND REBUILD AMERICA ONCE AGAIN. I YIELD BACK. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER ONE MINUTE UNDER THE PEEKER TISSUE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED SPOIL OF SCRAN 5, 2011 THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR. SHIMKUS IS RECOGNIZED FOR 60 MINUTES OF THE -- AS A DESIGNEE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. SPEAKER. I COME DOWN TO THE FLOOR ONCE A WEEK TO TALK ABOUT THE HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE FACT THAT THIS COUNTRY STILL DOESN'T HAVE A SING REAL POZZER TO TO STORE HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE. THROUGHOUT THIS WEEK, I HAVE TALKED ABOUT HANNIFORD, WASHINGTON, THAT HAS HIGH LEVELS OF NUCLEAR WASTE. I WENT TO ZION NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, RIGHT OFF LAKE MICHIGAN, TO TALK ABOUT ITS NUCLEAR WASTE RIGHT OFF ITS WASTE. -- RIGHT OFF THE LAKE. I WENT TO SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, TO TALK ABOUT THE PLANT THAT SITS RIGHT NEXT TO THE RIVER. I WENT TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN BETWEEN LOS ANGELES AND SAN DIEGO, WHERE THERE'S A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RIGHT ON THE PACIFIC OCEAN. TODAY, I TAKE THE NATION TO IDAHO, FOR IDAHO NATIONAL -- WHERE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORIES IS LOCATED. COMPARING THIS SITE AS I DO THE DEFINED LOCATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW IN THE 1982 NUCLEAR WASTE POWER ACT, YUCCA MOUNTAIN. NATIONAL LABS. AT THE NATIONAL LABS WE HAVE 5,090 CANISTERS OF NUCLEAR WASTE. EWE KA -- YOU KA MOUNTAIN, NONE. AT IDAHO, WASTE IS STORED ABOVEGROUND AND IN POOLS. AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, WASTE WILL BE STORED 1,000 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND. AT IDAHO, THE WASTE IS 500 FEET ABOVE THE WATER TABLE. AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, WASTE IS 1,000 FEET ABOVE THE WATER TABLE. IDAHO NATIONAL LABS, 50 MILES FROM THE NATIONAL PARK, YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS 100 MILES FROM THE COLORADO RIVER. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES? THERE ARE NUCLEAR PLANTS NOT INCLUDING NUCLEAR WASTE AT DEFENSE LABS, D.O.E. LABS AND THE LIKE. WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE'S NUCLEAR WASTE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND NEXT TO MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS AND NEXT TO MAJOR WATER RESERVES. WHAT I'VE ALSO DONE IN COMING DOWN *** IS HIGHLIGHTING HOW DO THE SENATORS FROM THE STATES THAT SURROUND THE IDAHO NUCLEAR LAB, WHAT ARE THEIR POSITIONS? AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS. SENATOR BORASSO FROM WYOMING IS A SUPPORTER OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND HAS STATED THAT THE END RESULT OF THIS IS A FIVE-FOOT-LONG, 25-FOOT-WIDE HOLE IN THE NEVADA DESERT, TO STORE NUCLEAR WASTE BUT INSTEAD IT STANDS AS A MONUMENT TO GOVERNMENT WASTE. THE OTHER SENATOR SAID PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED CHANGE. I AM DISPOINTED THAT HIS YUCCA MOUNTAIN POLICY IGNORES THAT CAMPAIGN PROMISE. MIKE CREPO FROM IDAHO VOTED YES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND HE'S DISAPPOINTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE NEW NORTH FROM IDAHO, SENATOR RICH, SAYS THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO KILL THE NATION'S CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED REPOSITORY FOR HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE AS A FAVOR TO ONE STATE IS POLITICS AT ITS WORST. THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO UNDERMINE THEIR COMMITMENTS TO IDAHO AND 33 OTHER STATES WITH NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE CANNOT STAND. THIS HAS BECOME A HALLMARK OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, FIRST WITH THE GUANTANAMO PRISON SITE AND NOW YUCCA MOUNTAIN TO JUMP WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO LAND. SO THE OTHER THING I'VE BEEN DOING IS HIGHLIGHTING, AS I'VE BEEN TAKING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE AREAS AROUND THE COUNTRY, WHERE ARE THE SENATORS BASED UPON THEIR PAST VOTES OR CURRENT STATEMENTS? RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 17 NARTS IN SUPPORT. WE HAVE THREE IN OPPOSITION, AND WE HAVE FOUR WHICH REALLY HAVE NO DEFINED POSITION AS OF YET. SENATOR FEINSTEIN, OF COURSE, HAS SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN BUT WITH FUKUSHIMA DAICHI AND THE FACT SHE HAS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON THE SHORE, I THINK SHE'S RE-EVALUATING. WE NEED 60 VOTES IN THE SENATE TO MOVE FORWARD AND FINISH THE SCIENCE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN SO THAT BY FEDERAL LAW, YUCCA MOUNTAIN BECOMES THE SINGLE REPOSITORY FOR HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE IN THIS COUNTRY. WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE CHAIR REALLOCATES THE BALANCE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER'S TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA. IN HOSEA 4:6, GD SAYS, MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. BECAUSE YOU HAVE REJECTED KNOWLEDGE, I ALSO WILL REJECT YOU AS MY PRIEST BECAUSE YOU HAVE IGNORED THE LAW OF YOUR I ALSO WILLIG FOREYOUR CHILDREN. HOLY, RIGHTEOUS GOD THAT CAN DO NOTHING ELSE BUT THAT PROMISE. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION AND HOW OUR FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVED IN LIBERTY. AND WE'RE LOSING THAT LIBERTY TREMENDOUSLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. FOR DECADES, SWORN OFFICERS -- LET ME GO BACK AND TELL YOU IN PSALM 11, GOD SAYS IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, WHAT ARE THE RIGHTEOUS TO DO? I BELIEVE IT'S A CALL TO DUTY TO REBUILD THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT ARE BEHIND LIBERTY. FOR DECADES, SWORN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN FACT, ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS, HAVE BEEN VIOLATING -- HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. FOR DECADES, SWORN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE VIOLATED THAT OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT OUR NATION'S MOST PRECIOUS DOCUMENT, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. DOMESTICALLY, THERE ARE MANY WHO BUY THEIR -- WHO BY THEIR ACTIONS, EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY UNDERMINE OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENT. EVERY DAY, OFFICIALS, RANGING FROM FEDERAL JUDGES TO U.S. SENATORS, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, LEADERSHIP, IGNORE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF OUR FOUNDERS. THAT WAS PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THE DISTORTION IS SO GREAT THAT THAT -- THAT NOW THERE IS SO LITTLE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEIR WORDS AND OUR ACTIONS HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THIS HAS BECOME THE NORM FOR TODAY'S BODY OF GOVERNMENT. BUT IT IS NOT WHAT THE GREAT LAWMAKERS OF THE PAST ENVISIONED FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE. TODAY, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS IN PARTICULAR ON ONE CAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE WE HAVE SEEN A DRAMATIC AND A DANGEROUS DISTORTION OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS' ORIGINAL INTENT. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS SLOWLY BEEN ERODED BY THE SELFISHNESS OF POLITICIANS AND COURTS ALIKE. NOWADAYS, IT CAN BE CARELESSLY APPLIED TO ALMOST ANY CASE THAT EXPANDS THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS IT RELATES TO OUR ECONOMY. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH TODAY, THROUGH TIME. STARTING WITH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS' ORIGINAL INTENT FOR THE CAUSE AND THEN MOVING THROUGH THE YEARS TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC CASES THAT HAVE LED TO DETERIORATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. WE'LL END WITH A MODERN DAY SITUATION THAT I KNOW EVERYBODY THIS COUNTRY, I THINK, IS FAMILIAR WITH. AND THAT BEING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMACARE. I HOACH THAT ALL OF OUR VIEWERS WILL STAY WITH ME THROUGHOUT THE HOUR BECAUSE IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU HELP ME TO EDUCATE THE REST OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FRIENDS, ON HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SPIRALED OUT OF IT'S UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE, THE PEOPLE. TO DEMAND THAT WASHINGTON GETS BACK TO CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED IT. WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THEIR THOUGHTS. WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THEIR INTENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. AND WE SEE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY BECAUSE OF THAT. THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE OVERREACH OF TODAY'S BUT THE SINGLE BIGGEST OFFENDER HAS BEEN THE EVER-EXPANDING INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IN FACT, AS AN ORIGINAL INTENT CONSTITUTIONALIST, I SAY WE SHOULDN'T INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, WE MUST APPLY THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS INTENDED. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO REGULATE COMMERCE? TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD COMMERCE, A GREAT PLACE TO START IS WITH THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE DOCUMENT STATES, NO PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN BY ANY REGULATION OF COMMERCE OR REVENUE TO THE PORTS OF ONE STATE OVER THOSE OF ANOTHER, TO OR FROM ONE STATE BE OBLIGED TO PAY DUTIES IN ANOTHER. WHAT'S THAT MEAN? COMMERCE IS BETWEEN STATES. COMMERCE IS SUPPOSED TO GO ACROSS STATE LINES. THAT'S WHAT COMMERCE MEANS. THE WAY COMMERCE WAS REGULARLY UNDERSTOOD, BY BOTH THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT THAT TIME, TO MEAN TRADE BETWEEN THE STATES. NOW WHAT ABOUT THE WORDS "TO REGULATE"? DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THE TERM REGULATE MEANT TO MAKE REGULAR. NOT TO CONTROL AS IT IS SO OFTEN USED TODAY. TO MAKE REGULAR. TO MAKE IT WORK. TO EXPAND COMMERCE, NOT TO CONTROL IT. TO PUT IT IN PLAIN WORDS, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS TO MAKE THAT COMMERCE AND TRADE BETWEEN THE STATES NORMAL OR REGULAR. IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE TRADE AND EXCHANGE, NOT TO HINDER IT WITH CRUSHING REGULATIONS. MOREOVER, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WANTED TO ENSURE THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES WAS NOT LIMITED BY TAXES OR TARIFFS. HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT JAMES MADISON AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON ENVISIONED. JAMES MADISON WROTE, THE POWERS DELEGATED BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED. THOSE WHICH ARE TO REMAIN IN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE. I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO READ THE STATES. THE 10TH AMENDMENT SAYS, IF A POWER IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE 18 THINGS THAT IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, THAT BEGINS HERE AND ENDS HERE THIS LITTLE LOOK LET -- BOOKLET, 18 THINGS IS ALL THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON. NATIONAL DEFENSE, NATIONAL SECURITY SHOULD BE THE MAJOR FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT MEANT TO EXPAND BEYOND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AS JAMES MADISON WROTE IN "FEDERALIST 45." SIMPLY PUT, MADISON WAS REINFORCING THE POINT THAT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE VERY LIMITED WHILE THE POWERS WITH THE STATES ARE BROAD IN SCOPE AND ARE MORE INDIVIDUALIZED AND ARE EXTREMELY BROAD IN CHARACTER. AGAIN, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE STRETCHED AS THIN AS IT IS TODAY, WHERE IT CAN BE APPLIED TO ALMOST ALL FORMS OF ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, AT BOTH THE STATE AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL LEVELS. MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. HERE'S A QUOTE FROM ALEXANDER HAMILTON, ONE OF THE FEDERALISTS WHO WANTED A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HE WROTE, IN "FEDERALIST 11," HE MAKES THE CASE THAT THE STATES SHOULD HAVE UNRESTRAINED ECONOMIC INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER, TO THEREFORE BOLSTER U.S. PRODUCTIVITY AND MAKE OUR EXPORTS MORE DESIRABLE TO FOREIGN MARKETS. HE WROTE, AN UNRESTRAINED INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE STATES THEMSELVES WILL ADVANCE THE TRADE OF EACH BY AN INTERCHANGE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PRODUCTS, NOT ONLY FOR THE SUPPLY OF RECIPROCAL WANTS AT HOME, BUT FOR EXPORTATION TO FOREIGN MARKETS. THE VEENS OF COMMERCE IN EVERY -- THE VEINS OF COMMERCE IN EVERY PART WILL BE REPLENISHED AND WILL ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL MOTION AND VIGOR FROM A FREE OF EVERY PART. SOME FELT AS THOUGH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRIZE WOULD HAVE A GREATER SCOPE OF DIVERSITY IN THE GOODS OF DIFFERENT STATES. HE ALSO FELT AS THOUGH WHEN AN INDUSTRY SUFFERED IN ONE STATE, IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER STATES. HAMILTON WENT ON TO SAY, QUOTE, THE VARIETY, NOT LESS THAN THE VALUE OF PRODUCTS FOR EXPORTATION, CONTRIBUTES TO THE ACTIVITY OF FOREIGN COMMERCE. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED UPON MUCH BETTER TERMS WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF MATERIALS OF A GIVEN VALUE THAN WITH A SMALL NUMBER OF MATERIALS OF THE SAME VALUE. ARISING FROM THE COMPETITIONS OF TRADES AND FROM THE FLUCTUATIONS PARTICULAR ARTICLES MAY BE IN GREAT DEMAND AT CERTAIN PERIODS AND UNSAILABLE AT OTHERS. BUT IF THERE BE A VARIETY OF ARTICLES, IT CAN SCARCELY HAPPEN ALL BE AT ONE TIME IN THE LATTER PREDICAMENT. AND ON THIS ACCOUNT THE OPERATIONS OF THE MERCHANT WOULD BE LESS LIBEL TO ANY CONSIDERABLE OBSTRUCTION OR STAGNATION. THE SLECK LAIVE TRADER WILL AT ONCE PERCEIVE THE FORCE OF THESE AND WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE EVER GOOD BALANCE OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE APPEAR TO BE MUCH MORE FAVORABLE THAN THAT OF THE 13 STATES WITHOUT UNION OR WITH PARTIAL UNIONS. HE'S SAYING THIS IN AN ARGUMENT GEARED TOWARDS A STRONG UNION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT'S HE SAYING THERE? THAT THE COMMERCE OF THE STATES IN A HOLE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO TO SUM IT UP IT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO ENSURE FREE TRADE BETWEEN THE STATES. AND TO ULTIMATELY CREATE THE MOST BALANCED AND DESIRABLE AMERICAN PRODUCTS TO SELL TO FOREIGN BUYERS. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME SPECIFIC CASES THAT LED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. IN THE FIRST CASE WE ARE GOING TO EXAMINE GIBBONS VS. OGDEN, THIS CASE WAS IN 1824. IT IS THE FIRST CASE IN WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS BROAD AND BEYOND ITS ORIGINAL MEANING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. HERE'S A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE CASE. NEW YORK PASSED A LAW GRANTING TWO OPERATORS, ROBERT L. LIVINGSON AND ROBERT FULTON THE EXCUSIVE RIGHT TO OPERATE STEAMBOATS WITHIN ITS WATERS, WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. OPERATORS FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF NEW YORK WISHING TO NAVIGATE WATERS WITHIN NEW YORK REQUIRED TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ORDER TO DO SO. AARON OGDEN FILED SUIT. ARGUING THAT THIS STATE SPONSORED MONOPOLY WAS IN OPPOSITION TO CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. IN HIS OPINION CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL RULED THAT THE WORD COMMERCE WAS FOUND -- AS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDES IN ITS DEFINITION THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS BETWEEN STATES. THIS RULING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FRAMERS' INTENT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN FEDERALIST 42. WHEN JAMES MADISON WROTE, TO THOSE WHO DO NOT VIEW THE QUESTION THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PASSION OR OF INTEREST, THE DESIRE OF THE COMMERCIAL STATES TO COLLECT, IN ANY FORM, AN INDIRECT REVENUE FROM THEIR NONCOMMERCIAL NEIGHBORS, MUST APPEAR NOT AS LESS IMPOLITIC THAN IT IS UNFAIR, SINCE IT WOULD STIMULATE THE INJURED PARTY BY RESENTMENT AS WELL AS INTEREST TO RESORT TO LESS CONVENIENT CHANNELS FOR THEIR FOREIGN TRADE. FOREIGN TRADE. COMMERCE OPENING UP BETWEEN THE STATES IS NOT CONTROLLED WITHIN THE STATES IS WHAT HE'S SAYING MADISON WENT ON TO EQUATE COMMERCE WITH WHAT HE DESCRIBED AS INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE STATES AND WROTE THAT THE DEFINITION OF AMONG THE STATES AS STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION WAS QUITE BROAD. HE WROTE, THE WORD AMONG MEANS INTERMINGLED WITH. A SAYING WHICH IS AMONG OTHERS IS INTERMINGED WITH THEM. COMMERCE ALONG THE STATES CANNOT STOP AT THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARY LINE OF EACH STATE. BUT MAYBE INTER-- BUT MAY BE INTRODUCED INTO THE INTERIOR. IT MAY VERY PROPERLY BE RESTRICTED TO THAT COMMERCE WHICH CONCERNS MORE STATES THAN ONE. AS A RESULT, SUBSEQUENT COURTS HAVE RULED THAT CONGRESS HAS THE COMMERCE THAT NOT ONLY IS TRULY INTERSTATE IN NATURE BUT ALSO COMMERCE WHICH AFFECTS MORE THAN ONE STATE. AS MATTHEW CLEMENTE OF FREEDOM WORKERS POINTED OUT IN A RECENT SERIES ENTITLED HOW THE COMMERCE CLAUSE RELATES TO THE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH HEALTH CARE, THIS BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS RESULTED IN JUSTIFICATIONS OF A NUMBER OF FEDERAL LAWS THAT REGULATE PURELY INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES. IN THE END, THE MARSHALL COURT STRUCK DOWN NEW YORK'S LAW BECAUSE OF ITS VIEW THAT CONGRESS NOT THE STATES HAS THE POWER TO CONTROL NAVIGATION WITHIN EACH STATE SO LONG AS IT RELATES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. AND THIS OPENED THE DOOR FOR EVEN LOOSER READINGS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN LATER CASES. SO JUST TO QUICKLY RECAP. IN THIS CASE THE COURT RULED THAT COMMERCE HAS BOTH THE POWER REGULATE COMMERCE THAT IS TRULY INTERSTATE IN NATURE AND ACTIONS RELATED TO COMMERCE WHICH AFFECT MORE THAN ONE STATE. EVEN THOUGH NOT THROUGH ONE COMMON CHANNEL. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ALEXANDER HAMILTON REPEATEDLY EQUATES COMMERCE WITH TRADE BETWEEN NATIONS AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN. HE DOES NOT EVER GIVE IT A BROADER MEANING RELATED TO ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT WITH ANY STATE WHICH MAY ALSO AFFECT ACTIVITIES IN OTHER STATES. LET'S LOOK AT ANOTHER CASE. THIS ONE IS SWIFT AND COMPANY VS. THE UNITED STATES IN 1905. THE CASE RESOLVED AROUND A NUMBER OF MEAT DEALERS IN CHICAGO WHICH HAD FORMED A MEAT TRUST IN WHICH THEY AGREED NOT TO BID AGAINST ONE ANOTHER IN AN EFFORT TO CONTROL MEAT PRICES. AT THE SAME TIME THE MEMBERS OF THE TRUST CONVINCED THE RAILROADS TO CHARGE THEM BELOW NORMAL RATES TO TRANSPORT THEIR PRODUCT. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN ATTEMPTING TO USE THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT TO BREAK UP THIS TRUST. ICING THE OPEN DOOR LEFT BY MARSHALL'S EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN SWIFT, THE COURT WENT A STEP FURTHER AN RULED THAT ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE WERE FAIR GAME FOR CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION. TOTALLY AGAINST ORIGINAL INTENT. IN HIS OPINION JUSTICE OLIVER WENDALL HOLMES WROTE THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE MEAT TRUST SCHEME WERE SUCH THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE PARTICIPANTS MEANT TO MONOPOLIZE THE MEAT TRADE WITHIN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. THEY TOOK THIS OBSERVATION A SELF FURTHER BY SAYING THAT THE TRUST INTENTION MAY ONLY HAVE WITHIN ITS OWN STATE BUT THE TRUST EFFECT UPON COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS NOT ACCIDENTAL SECONDARY, REMOTE, OR MERELY PROBABLE. HE WENT ON TO DIFFERENTIATE IN THIS CASE FROM CASES RELATED TO MANUFACTURING STATING THAT, QUOTE, HERE THE SUBJECT MATTER IS SAILS. AND THE VERY POINT OF THE COMBINATION IS TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IN RESPECT TO SUCH SAILS, UNQUOTE. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE MEAT AT ISSUE LIKELY HAD ROOTS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT STATES NOT JUST ILLINOIS. AND THEN ITS END DESTINATION COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN WITHIN A DIFFERENT STATE. THAT IN EFFECT WAS AFFECTING THE STREAM OF COMMERCE. THUS THE RULING IN SWIFT HAD THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF ACTIONS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT COMMERCE IN OTHER STATES. NOT WOULD ACTUALLY AFFECT THE COMMERCE BUT POTENTIALLY AFFECT COMMERCE WITHIN ANOTHER STATE SUCH AS THE SAIL OF ITEMS WHICH SPEAK -- COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE. AGAIN A FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT. AGAIN TO RECAP WHAT THIS CASE HAS SHOWN US. THE COURT RULED THAT ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE ARE POTENTIALLY -- OR POTENTIALLY COULD BE INVOLVED IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE MAY BE REGULATED BY CONGRESS. BUT IN REALITY THIS DECISION HAD THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING COMMERCE TO -- CONGRESS TO REGULATE NOT JUST ACTIONS WHICH COULD AFFECT MORE THAN ONE STATE BUT ALSO ACTIONS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE. AS A RESULT, IT WIDENS THE BREADTH OF ISSUES OVER WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE SERVED AUTHORITY UPPED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, TOTALLY AGAINST THE ORIGINAL INTENT. NEXT THE STAFFORD VERSUS WALLACE IN 1921 WE SEE CONGRESS PASSED THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT IN 1921 TO CREATE NEW REGULATIONS ON MEAT PACKERS IN RESPONSE TO CHARGES THAT THEIR PRACTICES WERE UNFAIR. AND ENCOURAGED THE FORMATION OF MONOPOLIES. IN STAFFORD THE COURT AFFIRMED -- REAFFIRMED ITS DECISION IN SWIFT THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, FINDING THAT CONGRESS COULD REGULATE ACTIVITIES WITHIN STOCKYARDS. SEEN AS LOCAL IN NATURE BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF A CHANNEL OF COMMERCE. WRITING THE DECISION CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT STATED THAT, QUOTE, THE OBJECT OF THE -- TO BE SECURED BY THE ACT IS THE FREE AND UNBURDENED FLOW OF LIVESTOCK FROM THE RANGES AND FARMS OF THE WEST AND THE SOUTHWEST THROUGH THE GREAT STOCKYARDS AND SLAUGHTERING CENTERS ON THE BORDERS OF THAT REGION. AND THEN IN THE FORM OF MEAT PRODUCTS TO THE CONSUMING CITIES OF THE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE WEST AND EAST. ARE STILL AS LIVESTOCK TO THE FEEDING PLACES AND FATTENING FARMS IN THE MIDDLE WEST OR EAST FOR FURTHER PREPARATION FROM THE MARKET. HE WENT ON TO STATE THAT IN HIS OPINION ANY PRACTICE WHICH, QUOTE, UNDULY AND DIRECTLY, UNQUOTE, EFFECTS THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK THROUGH THE STOCKYARDS IS A, QUOTE, UNJUST OBSTRUCTION TO THAT COMMERCE. AND AS A RESULT CONGRESS HAS THE ABILITY TO STEP IN AND REGULATE IT. HERE THE COURT RULES THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ALLOWS CONGRESS TO ACT AS IF IT BELIEVES THAT A LOCAL ENTITY IS PREVENTING THE FREE AND UNBURDENED FLOW OF A GOOD WHICH COULD HAVE ITS ROOTS IN MULTIPLE STATES SUCH AS CATTLE MOVING, STOCKYARDS, AND THE PACKAGING PLANTS. BUT IN REALITY THIS SIMPLY REAFFIRMS THE SWIFT DECISION WHICH ALLOWED CONGRESS TO INSERT ITSELF INTO ANY ACTIVITY THAT AFFECTS MORE THAN ONE STATE. THEN IN RICKER VS. FILL BURN -- PHILBURN, WE SEE THIS CASE OPENED THE DOORS WIDE, WIDELY OPENED TO ALLOW COMMERCE TO REGULATE ANY ACTIVITY THAT MIGHT RELATE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. I'M SURE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD ROLL OVER IN THEIR GRAVES IF THEY KNEW WHAT KIND OF POWER THE COURT BESTOWED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE DECISION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THIS CASE SO YOU CAN GRASP HOW RIDICULOUS THE COURT'S DECISION WAS IN THIS CASE. ROSCOE FILBURN WAS A FARMER WHO WAS PENALIZED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR HARVESTING MORE WHEAT THAN HE WAS ALLOTTED BY A U.S. REGULATION THAT SET QUOTAS FOR WHEAT CROPS. FILBURN FILED SUIT CLAIMING THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO SELL THE EXTRA WHEAT. THAT HE WOULD ONLY BE USING IT ON HIS OWN FARM FOR HIS OWN FAMILY. AND THEREFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY SAY WHATSOEVER IN THE MATTER. THE JUSTICE ROBIN H. JACKSON WROTE IN HIS OPINION THAT, QUOTE, THE COMMERCE POWER IS NOT CONFINED IN ITS EXERCISE TO THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES. IT EXTENDS TO THOSE ACTIVITIES INTERSTATE WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNQUOTE. HE WENT ON TO WRITE, AS THIS POSTER SHOWS, EVEN IF AN ACTIVITY BE LOCAL, AND THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS COMMERCE, WHATEVER ITS NATURE, BE REACHED BY CONGRESS IF IT EXERTS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING COULD CLAUSE. COMMERCE. ANYTHING. THAT'S WHAT WE SEE TODAY. MOST RECENTLY IN 2005, THE COURT REAFFIRMED THE DECISION IN WICKARD VFMENT FILBURN WHICH SHOWS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO DATE. THIS IS JUST A FEW YEARS AGO IN 2005,S THE WIDEST INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE SHOWING THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT EVEN SHOW EVIDENCE THAT AN ACTION COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEFORE IT IS TABLE REGULATE IT. THIS CASE ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT CONGRESS NEEDS ONLY TO FIND THAT A, QUOTE, RATIONAL BASIS, EXISTS FOR BELIEVING THAT AN ACTION COULD AFFECT COMMERCE IN ORDER TO REGULATE IT. AGAIN, IN THIS CASE, THE COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS MAY REGULATE ANY ACTIVITY WHICH MIGHT RELATE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. HOW IN -- HOW INANE. HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE REALITY IS IT IS JUST ABSURD THAT CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE THIS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO STOP A PHAR -- A FARMER FROM USING HIS OWN COPS TO FEED HIS OWN LIVESTOCK IN HIS OWN FAMILY SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS DOING SO MAY RESULT IN HIS NOT PURCHASING WHEAT FROM ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE MARKETPLACE. WE CANNOT USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO AFFECT ANY ACTIVITY ON COMMERCE. HOWEVER THE REHNQUIST COURT WROTE FROM THIS TREND AND DECIDE TWO KEY CASES THAT LIMITED THE USE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN THE REGULATION WAS NOT FIRMLY BASED ON ECONOMIC I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MOVE EVEN MORE DRASTICALLY IN THAT DIRECTION THAT THE REHNQUIST COURT STARTED, OR ESTABLISHED. 1995, U.S. VS. LOPEZ. THE FIRST CASE WHERE A DISTINCTION WAS DRAWN BETWEEN USING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND USING IT TO REGULATE ANY ACTIVITY WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT COMMERCE. ALFONZO LOPEZ WAS A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CHARGED WITH POSSESSING FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY UNDER THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990. LOPEZ CHALLENGED THAT, CLAIMING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY WHERE SOMEONE MAY OR MAY NOT CARRY A GUN. ATTORNEYS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARGUED THAT THE POSSESSION OF A GUN -- THIS IS JUST SO FAR OUT AND CRAZY, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE. BUT THIS IS WHAT THEY ARGUED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ARGUED THAT POSSESSION OF A GUN ON SCHOOL GROUNDS COULD LEAD TO VIOLENT CRIME. THE GUN DOESN'T MAKE IT LEAD TO VIOLENT CRIME BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE CLAIMING. THIS WOULD INCREASE INSURANCE COSTS. AND IT ALSO WOULD DETER VISITORS FROM COMING TO THE GENERAL AREA, THUS DAMPENING THE LOCAL ECONOMY. THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT STUDENTS WHO FEAR VIOLENCE IN THEIR SCHOOLS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE DISTRACTED IN THE CLASSROOM, RESULTING IN A LESS EDUCATED WORK FORCE AND AN OVERALL WEAKER NATIONAL ECONOMY. BOY, THAT'S FAR-REACHING. THAT'S WHAT YOUR FEDERAL THIS CASE. IN HIS OPINION, CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST WROTE, THE POSSESSION OF A GUN IN A LOCAL SCHOOL ZONE IS IN NO SENSE AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT MIGHT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT ANY SORT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. TO UPHOLD THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS HERE, WE WOULD HAVE TO PILE INFERENCE UPON INFERENCE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO CON -- CONVERT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO POLICE POWER. WE HAVE SEEN THAT OVER AND OVER WHERE CONGRESS HAS GENERATED A BIGGER AND BIGGER FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. REHNQUIST WENT ON TO SAY CONGRESS COULD REGULATE ANY ACTIVITY THAT WAS -- THAT IT FOUND WAS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. FAMILY LAW, FOR EXAMPLE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY LIMITATION ON FEDERAL POWER, EVEN IN AREAS SUCH AS CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OR EDUCATION, WHERE STATES HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN SOVEREIGN. IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENTS, WE ARE HARD-PRESSED TO POZZ SIT ANY ACTIVITY BY AN INDIVIDUAL THAT CONGRESS IS WITHOUT POWER TO REGULATE, AN HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT HE ADDED, ADMITTEDLY, SOME OF OUR PRIOR CASES HAVE TAKEN LONG STEPS DOWN THAT ROAD, GIVING GREAT DEFERENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, BUT WE DECLINE HERE TO PROCEED ANY FURTHER. THE QUOTE ON THIS POSTER SHOWS REHNQUIST ADMITTING HOW THESE CASES I HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT, THE CASES IN THE PAST WHERE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BEEN STRETCHED VERY THIN AND OFTEN MISAPPLIED. IN LOPEZ, REHNQUIST RULED THAT THE -- THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE NONECONOMIC ACTIVITY. EVEN IN CASES WHERE IT COULD FIND A TANGENTIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT ACTIVITY AND THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY AT LARGE. THEN IN U.S. VS. MORRISON IN 2000, BUILT ON THE FINDING OF LOPEZ, AND IT REAFFIRMED THE COURT'S OPINION, THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT REACH INTO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE ACTIVITY WHICH ONLY TANGENTIALLY TOUCHED INTERSTATE COMMERCE. BRONCOLA WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY TWO OF HER COLLEAGUES, SHE FILED AGAINST THEM UNDER A LAW THAT PROVIDED FOR GENDER MOTIVATED VIOLENCE. HER ATTACKERS ARGUED THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO WAY TO PROSECUTE AGAINST GENDER MOTIVATED VIOLENCE. THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED IT DOES AFFECT COMMERCE. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WROTE, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN -- HE WROTE, THE EXISTENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS IS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUSTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION. LOPEZ, QUOTE, SIMPLY BECAUSE CONGRESS MACON COLLUDE THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT SO. HE ADDED, THUS FAR IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY, OUR CASES HAVE UPHELD COMMERCE CLAUSE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITY ONLY WHERE THAT ACTIVITY IS ECONOMIC IN NATURE. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS IS NOT ABLE TO USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE NONECONOMIC BEHAVIOR. AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONSTITUTION DELEGATES SUCH REGULATION TO THE STATES AS AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWERS, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BUT THE POLICE'S, THE STATE'S POLICE POWERS. THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS JUST CHOCK FALL OF GREAT QUOTES. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO READ SOME OF THEM. THE FIRST BEING, ON THIS POSTER, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS TRULY NATIONAL AND WHAT IS TRULY LOCAL. GIVEN PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THE CONCERN WE EXPRESSED IN COMMERCE -- IN LOPEZ THAT CONGRESS MIGHT USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO OBLITERATE THE CONSTITUTION'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY SEEMS WELL FOUNDED. THE NEXT QUOTE IF ACCEPTED, PETITIONERS' REASONING WOULD ALLOW CONGRESS TO REGULATE ANY CRIME AS LONG AS THE NATIONWIDING A GATED IMPACT OF THAT CRIME HAS SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION, TRANSIT, OR CONSUMPTION. SAY, INDEED, WE CAN THINK OF NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF THE POLICE POWER WHICH THE FOUNDING FATHERS DENIED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND REPOSED TO THE STATES THAN THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT CRIME OF ITS VICTIMS. LASTLY, REHNQUIST CLOSED THE CASE BY SAYING THIS, IF THE ALLEGATIONS HERE ARE TRUE, NO CIVILIZED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE COULD FAIL TO PROVIDE HER REMEDY FOR THE CONDUCT BUT UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, THAT REMEDY MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE STATE AND NOT BY THE UNITED STATES. AS YOU CAN SEE THROUGH REHNQUIST'S DECISIONS IN THESE TWO CASES THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED TO EXPAND THE POLICE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE CRIMES IN THESE CASES THAT WERE TREATED AS FEDERAL CRIMES SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED EITHER BY THE STATE OR LOCALLY. WE DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CREATE AN JUSTICE SYSTEM. IN FACT, INITIALLY, THERE WERE ONLY THREE FEDERAL FELONIES, TREASON, PIRACY, AND COUNTERFEITING. THAT'S COUNTERFEITING AGAINST COINAGE, MONEY. LET'S COME TO AN ISSUE THAT'S IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST ASSAULTS ON FREEDOM TO DATE. ONE OF THE WORST PERVERSIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. COMMONLY KNOWN AS OBAMACARE. USING THE DECISIONS IN LOPEZ AND MORRISON, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE SET FORTH IN OBAMACARE. AS WELL AS ALL THE STATE MANDATES THAT ARE IN THAT LAW. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE REQUIRES ALL CITIZENS TO HAVE SOME FORM OF HEALTH INSURANCE, WHETHER THEY WANT TO HAVE IT OR NOT. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST MADE IT CLEAR IN MORRISON THAT JUST PAUSE CONGRESS HAS STATED THAT IT HAS AN INTEREST IN REGULATING WHAT KIND OF HEALTH CARE AMERICANS PURCHASE OR WHETHER THEY PURCHASE IT AT ALL, WHETHER THEY PURCHASE IT OR DON'T PURCHASE IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. AND IT IS NOT A STRETCH FROM REHNQUIST'S DECISION THAT HE WOULD HAVE ALSO STRUCK DOWN THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE OPPOSED THE IDEA THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ALLOWING CONGRESS TO REGULATE ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION, TRANSIT OR CONSUMPTION. IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MATTHEW KLIMENY OF FREEDOMWORKS, HE ARGUES THAT THE CASES ALL INVOLVE AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY WHICH WAS PROACTIVELY TRYING TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE. HERE, WE SEE THE OPPOSITE. INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING TOLD THAT IN ORDER TO GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES, FREE FROM PENALTY, THEY MUST PURCHASE A CERTAIN PRODUCT. FOLKS, THIS IS SOCIALISM. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. THE ARGUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN MANDATE THAT ALL CITIZENS MUST PURCHASE A CERTAIN PRODUCT. MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES MANDATED IT THROUGH THIS BILL. THROUGH THIS LAW. THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS OBAMACARE. 23 CONGRESS WANTS TO PROMOTE THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL WAY, IT SHOULD PASS LEGISLATION WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO BUY COVERAGE ACROSS STATE LINES. THIS WOULD ADHERE TO THE CONSTITUTION. AND WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE, HEALTH INSURANCE, AT A MUCH LOWER PRICE THAN THEY CAN TODAY. AND WE GIVE A WHOLE LOT BETTER PRODUCTS. -- AND WOULD GIVE A WHOLE LOT BETTER PRODUCTS. CONGRESS' -- CONGRESSES, PRESIDENTS, COURT JUDGES, EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN THIS COUNTRY , SWEARS AN OATH, I SWORE THE OATH WHEN I WAS SWORN IN TO THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS IN 1964. I SWORE THE SAME OATH IN 2007 AND STOOD BEHIND THIS PODIUM, IN 2007, I SWORE TO THAT OATH. 2009, 2011. EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY SWEARS TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. WE HAVE A LOT OF DOMESTIC ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. A LOT OF THOSE DOMESTIC ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE WEARING BLACK ROBES AND THEY'RE SITTING AT BENCHES IN FEDERAL COURTS ALL ACROSS THIS LAND. THEY HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY SWEARS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. THERE'S VIOLATION AFTER VIOLATION THAT OCCURS RIGHT HERE ON THIS FLOOR. THINK ABOUT IT. IF WE DON'T HAVE A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD ALL OUR LAWS, ALL OF OUR SOCIETY , THEN WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION AT ALL. FALL. IT'S GOING TO FAIL. AS WE READ IN PROVE HERBS, GOD SAYS, THERE'S A -- PROVERBS, GOD SAYS, THERE'S A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF MAN. BUT ITS PATH IS THE WAY OF DEATH. THIS NATION. I HEAR COLLEAGUES PARTICULARLY ON THE OTHER SIDE SAY, THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING AND BREATHING DOCUMENT. THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. AND, THAT MY FRIENDS, IS NOT FACTUAL. THE ONLY ARBITER OF WHAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT IS THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT OUR IT. IF WE OVERSTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR FREEDOM. WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR LIBERTY. THE BRIGHT AND SHINY STAR OF LIBERTY THAT'S BEEN OVER THIS NATION FOR OVER 200 YEARS IS UPHELD BY SIX PILLARS. THE FIRST OF THOSE IS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT IT. THE SECOND ONE IS THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. UNINHIBITED BY TAXES AND REGULATION. THE THIRD IS THE RULE OF LAW WHERE EVERYBODY, EVERY ENTITY IN THIS COUNTRY IS TREATED EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. AND CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW TODAY. THE FOURTH IS PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHERE PEOPLE CAN OWN AND CONTROL THEIR PROPERTY AND GOVERNMENT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THAT OWNERSHIP AND IF IT DOES, IF IT DEVALUES IT, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF THE DEVALUATION OF THAT PRIVATE PROFIT. THE FIFTH -- PROPERTY. THE FIFTH PILLAR IS A PILLAR OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AND THE MIDDLE PILLAR THAT HOLDS UP THE CENTER OF THE STAR OF LIBERTY IS THE PILLAR OF MORALITY. IN FACT, JOHN ADAMS SAID, OUR CONSTITUTION'S WRITTEN FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THAT'S WHOLLY INADEQUATE FOR THE GOVERNING OF ANY OTHER. I HEAR COLLEAGUES SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY. THEY ARE SO WRONG. EVERY LAW, EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION, NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, IS SOMEBODY'S IDEA OF WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG. EVERY LAW IS LEGISLATING MORALITY. OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON THE PREMISES OF BIBLICAL TRUTHS, ON THE PRINCIPLES, THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY SO GREAT. AND HAVE GIVEN US THE LIBERTY THAT WE HAVE. AS A NATION. BUT, FRIENDS, WE'RE STANDING RIGHT ON A PRECIPICE. WE'RE STARING DOWN INTO A SOCIALISM AND THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO BE PUSHED OFF, ARE WE GOING TO LEAP OFF AND FALL INTO THAT DEEP, DARK CHAS MUCH OF SOCIALISM, -- CHASM OF SOCIALISM, WOULD WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, OR ARE WE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND MARCH UP THE HILL OF LIBERTY AND REGAIN FOR THIS NATION WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FOUGHT AND DIED AND SACRIFICED SO NOBLY FOR THAT LIBERTY? TODAY, WE'RE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO SO ANY MORE. WE HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND MARCH UP THAT HILL OF LIBERTY AND RECLAIM IT AND START REBUILDING THOSE SIX PILLARS OF LIBERTY THAT HAVE BEING ERODED, THAT ARE BEING ERODED BY DEMOCRATS AND BY REPUBLICANS, BY CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS ALIKE. GOING BACK TO THAT FIRST POST THAT ARE I PUT UP HERE, WHERE GOD TALKS, HE SAYS, MY PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS LACK OF OF HOW WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. EVEN LAWYERS AND JUSTICES, JUDGES DON'T HAVE A CONCEPT OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE AND IN FACT, IN MOST LAW SCHOOLS IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IN THE COURSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THEY DO NOT TEACH THE THEY DO NOT TEACH THE ORIGINAL INTENT. THEY DO NOT TEACH THE PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY SO POWERFUL, SO RICH, SO SUCCESSFUL AS A POLITICAL EXPERIMENT. THE GREATEST OF ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, WHAT DID THEY TEACH? THEY TEACH CASE LAW WHERE JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RULED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CASE AND HAVE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. BECAUSE THEY'RE DESTROYING OUR LIBERTY. THEY'RE DESTROYING OUR FREEDOM. AND IT'S UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THIS ANYMORE. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE. YOU SEE, THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL FORCE IN THIS NATION IS EMBODIED IN THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF WHAT ONE U.S. SENATOR, ERIC DURSON, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, ONCE SAID, HE SAID, WHEN HE FEELS THE HEAT, HE CEASE THE LIGHT. -- SEES THE LIGHT. WHAT HE MEANS IS IF HE'S HEADED IN ONE DIRECTION AND ENOUGH OF HIS CONSTITUENTS CONTACT HIM AND SAY, BUSTER, YOU'RE HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, IF ENOUGH PEOPLE CONTACT HIM BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO STAND FIRM ON THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS RE-ELECTION, THEN HE'LL BEGIN TO SEE THE LIGHT. THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AND THE ONE ACROSS THE WAY, IN THE U.S. SENATE, AS WELL AS PRESIDENTS AND OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, THAT NEED TO FEEL THE HEAT, THEY NEED TO FEEL THE HEAT OF LIBERTY WE THE PEOPLE. THAT DEMAND A DIFFERENT KIND OF GOVERNANCE, DEMAND GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN ARE GOING TO LIVE A SOCIALISTIC STATE SUCH AS WE SEE IN CUBA AND IN VENEZUELA AND WE SAW IN COMMUNIST CHINA AND THE SOVIET UNION. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO GET UP IN ARMS AND START BUILDING GRASSFIRES, OF GRASSROOT SUPPORT ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. BUT CANDIDATES AND FOR MAYBES -- MEMBERS THAT ARE ALREADY ELECTED AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THIS ANYMORE. THE ONLY ARBITER OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT WAS MEANT IN THE CONSTITUTION BY THOSE WHO WROTE IT. I'M ASK ALL THE TIME, PAUL, YOU WEREN'T AROUND THEN, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT? OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN'T HAVE VIDEO GAMES AND TV AND THE INTERNET. THEY WROTE, THEY READ. I ENCOURAGE THE AMERICAN CITIZENS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY TO READ, READ WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID ABOUT THE READ WHAT THEY MEANT BY IT. BECAUSE IF WE ARE DESTROYED BY A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, IF YOU TURN THAT AROUND, THINK ABOUT IT, WE'RE NOT DESTROYED WITH KNOWLEDGE. AND YOU GO ON, GOD SAYS, HE'S GOING TO IGNORE OUR CHILDREN, HE'S GOING TO REJECT OUR THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION DEPENDS UPON WE THE PEOPLE STANDING FIRM AND SAYING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THIS ANYMORE. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE HARD WORK OF KNOWING WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE HARD WORK OF DEMANDING OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES THAT THEY STAND BY THE PRINCIPLES, THE FOUNDATIONS THAT HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY SO GREAT, SO POWERFUL, SO SUCCESSFUL. THERE ARE MANY MEMBERS OF THIS BODY THAT NEED TO FEEL THE HEAT. MANY PEOPLE IN THIS BODY THAT NEED TO SEE THE DOOR. BECAUSE IT DON'T STAND ON THE CONSTITUTION, THEY DON'T OPPOSE THE -- UPHOLD THE OATH OF OFFICE, THEY DON'T DO WHAT THEY PROMISED THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AND THERE ARE JUDGES ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, FEDERAL JUDGES, THAT NEED TO BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION. THEY'RE NOT DEFENDING THE THEY'RE NOT DOING WHAT THEY'VE PROMISED THAT THEY WOULD DO. THEY'RE VIOLATING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. IT HAS TO STOP AND THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO STOP IT IS FOR WE THE PEOPLE TO STAND UP AND SAY, NO MORE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ELECT ANYBODY WHO'S NOT GOING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS ORIGINAL INTENT. AND WE'VE GOT TO GET THE HARD WORK DONE OF RESTORING THOSE SIX PRINCIPLES. THE SIX PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE UPHELD THAT BRIGHT, SHINING STAR OF LIBERTY OVER THIS COUNTRY FOR SO LONG. AND I'M EXCITED BECAUSE WE SEE GRASSROOTS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY BEGINNING TO RISE UP. WE SEE A SLEEPING GIANT THAT'S BEGINNING TO WAKE UP AND STRETCH ITS ARMS AND LEGS AND BEGIN TO WALK. THE PRESS CALLS IT THE TEA PARTY. THERE'S NOT A TEA PARTY, THERE ARE MANY TEA PARTIES. AND THIS FREEDOMWORKS, THERE'S AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY, THERE ARE GROUPS, GRASSROOTS GROUPS LIKE THE N.R.A. AND GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA AND RIGHT TO WORK AND OTHER GROUPS THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION. WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE THE SLEEPING GIANT OF WE THE PEOPLE WAKING UP. IT'S TIME TO NOT ONLY WAKE UP AND STRETCH OUR ARMS AND LEGS RUN. WE'VE GOT TO DO THE HARD WORK OF RE-ESTABLISHING LIBERTY IN THIS COUNTRY. WE'RE LOSING OUR LIBERTY, FRIENDS. AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE IT ALL, WE'RE STANDING ON THAT PRECIPICE, STARING DOWN IN THAT DEEP, DARK CHASM OF SOCIALIST. ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE PUSHED OFF BY COURTS? BY CONGRESSES? BY PRESIDENTS? DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE? ARE WE GOING TO TURN AROUND AS A PEOPLE AND DEMAND LIBERTY AND START MARCHING UP THAT HILL OF LIBERTY AND IT'S GOING TO BE A MOUNTAIN CLIMB, BUT WE CAN DO IT. I'M EXCITED BECAUSE I SEE THAT GREAT SLEEPING GIANT. MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL FORCE IN AMERICA. EMBODIED IN THOSE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, WE THE PEOPLE. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVED IN WE THE PEOPLE. THAT'S THE REASON WHEN THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENT THEY PUT THE LETTERS IN SUCH LARGE SCRIPT, MUCH, MUCH LARGER, PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN THE REST OF THE TEXT IN THE DOCUMENT, BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE IS THE KEY. THAT FORCE OF WE THE PEOPLE. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK TODAY, ARE WE GOING TO JUMP OR BE FORCED DOWN INTO THAT DEEP, DARK CHASM OF SOCIALISM, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE A FREE PEOPLE? ARE WE GOING TO DEMAND LIBERTY? IT'S UP TO EACH AND EVERY FREEDOM-LOVING CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY. TO DEMAND A DIFFERENT KIND OF GOVERNANCE. AND I BELIEVE WE CAN DO IT, I BELIEVE WE WILL DO IT, BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE LOVE LIBERTY IN AMERICA AND I'M TRUSTING IN WE THE PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DEMAND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS. AND GOD BLESS AMERICA AND I YIELD BACK. THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE AN