[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5781-5785]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1920
                         THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Runyan). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, America is facing some very 
perilous times because of the joblessness, because of the poor economy, 
because of the outrageous spending that's been going on for the last 2 
years through the last Congress.
  I come tonight, Mr. Speaker, to discuss something that I think is 
critically important for the American people to understand, because 
we've gotten away from what the Constitution says and what the original 
intent of the Constitution might be.
  I've seen Member after Member, Mr. Speaker, hold up a copy of the 
Constitution. I carry a copy in my pocket. And they'll hold up a copy 
of the Constitution and talk about this being a living and breathing 
document. Nothing could be further from the truth in the philosophy of 
our Founding Fathers.
  In fact, our Founding Fathers meant this to be a very solid 
foundation. The Declaration of Independence expresses the philosophy of 
liberty in America, and the Constitution is an embodiment of those 
principles into a governing document.
  Mr. Speaker, if we don't have a solid foundation upon which to build 
all of our laws, all of our society, then we're building our society 
and laws on shifting sand. You can ask a 6-year-old, if you build a 
house or a building on shifting sand, what's going to happen? It's 
going to fall, it's going to fail. That's exactly what's happening in 
our country today, because we've gotten away from the original intent 
of the Constitution.
  In Hosea 4:6, God says, ``My people are destroyed for a lack of 
knowledge.'' We have a tremendous lack of knowledge about the 
foundational principles, what our Founding Fathers meant for government 
to be. We have a tremendous lack of knowledge in this Nation even in 
Federal jurists, even in jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, 
about the Constitution.
  In fact, I was very shocked--as I got interested in politics, I 
started talking to lawyers who had gone to law schools all over this 
country. The majority of lawyers that I've spoken with--law schools, 
public and private all across this country, they all have a course 
called constitutional law. But the American public would be absolutely 
shocked to understand that lawyers, even when they take constitutional 
law--and in a lot of law schools it's an elective even--when they take 
constitutional law, they don't study the Constitution. All they study 
is case law, what the Federal court system has said about the 
Constitution.
  And we've got Federal jurists all the way up to the Supreme Court, 
but in all levels, from Federal district courts to the appellate system 
all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that bring down ruling after 
ruling that is not based upon the Constitution in its original intent. 
That philosophy leads to tyranny in all possibility.
  Our Founding Fathers never meant this. In fact, if people would read 
the Constitution and read what our Founding Fathers said about the 
Constitution, they would understand that.
  There's a great resource that talks about what our Founding Fathers 
meant for the Constitution to be. The architect of the Constitution, 
James Madison, John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, 
and Alexander Hamilton, who was an ardent Federalist who believed in a 
strong Federal Government, wrote a series of essays. These essays were 
printed in the newspapers in New York State. They were written to tell 
New Yorkers about what government should be under the Constitution in 
its original intent.
  They explained in minute detail what government should be not only 
then but 200, 400, 600 years later, because they knew very firmly, very 
strongly that if we didn't have that original intent and a strong, 
solid foundation of government, that we could lose our liberty. That's 
the reason they wanted us to stay with their intent in the 
Constitution.

[[Page 5782]]

  They wrote these series of essays. Those essays have been bound 
together--this little booklet, ``The Federalist Papers,'' contains 
these essays. These essays were written by James Madison, Alexander 
Hamilton, and John Jay about the Constitution to explain the 
Constitution.
  If people will get ``The Federalist Papers'' and read them, they will 
see how far off track we have gotten as a Nation. They will see that 
our Nation is being destroyed from within, being destroyed by a 
philosophy of big government, and this philosophy has been fostered 
upon us by Democrats and Republicans alike, by liberals and 
conservatives alike. We've got to change that.
  Mr. Speaker, the only way that we're going to change governing here 
in the United States is not here in Washington, not here in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, not over across the way in the U.S. Senate, 
not down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. The only 
way we're going to change the philosophy of governance is if the 
grassroots, the good people across this Nation, start demanding a 
different kind of governance.
  We've got to stop this outrageous spending. We've got to get our 
economy back on track. We've got to start creating jobs. What's made 
this country so rich, so powerful, so successful as a political 
experiment, the greatest political experiment in all of history, in all 
of mankind, is right here in the United States based on the 
Constitution of the United States in its original intent.
  We have a tremendous lack of knowledge.
  Now, ``The Federalist Papers'' in the old language, it's a bit 
difficult to read. Their style of writing, their style of English was a 
bit different from ours.
  We've got another resource that I highly recommend, which is ``The 
Federalist Papers in Modern Language.'' A person can buy this off 
Amazon, they can get this in Barnes and Noble bookstores around the 
country. If they don't have it in stock, it can be ordered.
  The editor, Mary Webster, got some folks to transliterate ``The 
Federalist Papers'' from old-style English into modern English. What 
``transliterate'' means is to change one word in the old style to 
another word in the new style. This is not an editorialization of ``The 
Federalist Papers,'' it is not a commentary on ``The Federalist 
Papers.'' It's strictly a transliteration. In other words, it's changed 
from old-style English into new-style English. And that's all it's 
done.
  People can go and read either ``The Federalist Papers'' in its 
original English form or ``The Federalist Papers in Modern Language,'' 
and can become knowledgeable.
  We've got to light grassfires all across this country to demand a 
different kind of governance or we're going to destroy everything that 
our Founding Fathers have given us.
  This Nation was built on personal responsibility and accountability. 
It was based on freedom and liberty. I use those words separately.
  Let me explain ``liberty'' for you, give you a definition. I don't 
know if this is my original definition or not. I don't remember ever 
reading it anywhere. I haven't seen it when I've gone to look it up. 
I'm not claiming it as my own, though I don't know who wrote it, if 
someone did: Liberty. Liberty is freedom bridled by morality.

                              {time}  1930

  Liberty is freedom bridled by morality. You see, a wild bear is free. 
All the wild bear's constrained by is the instincts that our Creator 
put in a wild bear. It can go anywhere it wants to. A male wild bear 
will even kill its own cubs just to try to get to the sow, to breed 
her. He doesn't care about anybody else but himself. That sow will 
protect her cubs, but other than that she's free, and she chooses to do 
so by her instinct.
  But absolute freedom is anarchy. It's anarchy. You see, if I am 
totally free, if I don't like somebody, I can just kill them. In fact, 
we see that by dictators around the world, historically as well as in 
present times. But you see, freedom bridled by morality, liberty, means 
that my freedom stops where another person's freedom starts. And we can 
come together and work in concert for the greater good, for the greater 
good of our families, our communities, our cities, our States, as well 
as our Nation.
  This country was founded upon liberty, personal responsibility, and 
accountability. It's been so successful economically because it's been 
based on the free enterprise system. Free enterprise. Free enterprise 
is the engine that pulls along the train of economic prosperity here in 
America. But we're destroying that.
  Our President has a philosophy that I believe is totally against free 
enterprise. A lot of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, 
believe the Federal Government ought to control virtually every aspect 
of our lives. George W. Bush was a big-spending, big-government 
President. He gave us No Child Left Behind, which has been a disaster. 
I call it Leave No Teacher Unshackled. We've got to get the shackles 
off teachers, let the local school boards run the education system, not 
by a Federal Department of Education, or I don't even think by a State 
Department of Education. But the States have the right to do that 
constitutionally.
  The most powerful political force in America today is embodied in the 
first three words of the U.S. Constitution: ``We the people.'' And if 
we the people will become knowledgeable about the Constitution and 
about the Founding Fathers' philosophy of government, the philosophy of 
liberty and freedom, the philosophy of a free enterprise system, a 
philosophy of individual responsibility and individual accountability, 
then we can put this country back on the right course by the American 
people demanding their freedom back. We've lost a lot of it. A 
tremendous amount of freedom has been lost. We're losing our liberty, 
and we have a government that has taken away our freedoms.
  The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ``We the 
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, 
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide the common 
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this 
Constitution of the United States.''
  Tonight I am going to talk about one little phrase in this Preamble. 
It's also in another place in the Constitution. I'm going to talk about 
the general welfare clause. We'll come back on another night, and I am 
going to talk about the commerce clause. And then we'll talk also about 
the elastic clause, and the Bill of Rights, and other parts of the 
Constitution.
  But three phrases out of the Constitution have been utilized to 
pervert the idea behind the Constitution, to destroy its original 
intent, to cause us to continue to lose liberty here in America. The 
general welfare clause is one of those. You see, Congress has strayed 
from the clear-cut path, the certainty and liberty that our Founding 
Fathers outlined in the most basic and fundamental document to ever 
exist, and that's our Constitution.
  The single most important part of this revered document is embodied 
in those first three words, because we are supposed to be a government 
of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Abraham Lincoln 
said. Our government's purpose is to protect and preserve freedom and 
liberties of we, the people. Government is supposed to be governing at 
the consent of the people, not the people being dealt with at the 
consent of the government.
  Yet nowadays it seems as though the Federal Government has inserted 
itself into almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, monitoring 
what kind of health care we can have, bailing out the automobile 
industry, and regulating the education standards. Just a few examples 
of the Federal Government's hand's overreach into things where it 
should not go.
  Mr. Speaker, over time it's become the norm for the Federal 
Government to keep expanding in both size and scope by absorbing powers 
and rights that were intended for the States and the people. In fact, 
in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it says if a

[[Page 5783]]

right is not specifically given to the Federal Government by the 
Constitution, in other words these things that are in article I, 
section 8, as well as a few others, but these are the things we can 
pass laws about, if it's not prohibited from the States, then those 
rights are reserved for the States and the people.
  One of my primary goals while serving here in Washington is to send 
these powers back to the States and to the people and to ensure that, 
do everything that I can to ensure that the Constitution is applied as 
the Founding Fathers intended. I will work very hard to try to build 
those bridges, to send those powers back to the States and people. 
These are the powers created in article I, section 8.
  The necessary and proper clause, the so-called elastic clause, allows 
Congress to pass laws about these other things; but this is all the 
Federal Government, all the House and the Senate is supposed to be 
passing laws about. Now, we have some say in the courts, we have some 
say with the executive branch, but these are the things that Congress 
is supposed to be passing laws about, and nothing else. Nothing else 
but these things.
  Well, the general welfare clause is one of the most commonly abused 
and misapplied powers that the Federal Government has utilized to 
expand the size and scope of government and to destroy our liberty. 
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, clause 1: ``The Congress 
shall have 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.'' This is the second place, I 
mentioned just a few minutes before, in the Preamble our Founding 
Fathers mentioned general welfare.

                              {time}  1940

  Here it is in article I, section 8, clause 1, the general welfare.
  This clause generated the most debate during our Founding Fathers' 
period because the term ``general welfare'' is vague and leaves much 
room for interpretation. Now we hear judges talk about interpreting the 
Constitution. Judges shouldn't be interpreting the Constitution. Words 
make a difference. And when we use the word ``interpreting,'' that 
means somebody can apply their own bias what should and what should not 
be constitutional.
  Well, you should be utilizing the word, apply the Constitution in its 
original intent. I am an original intent constitutionalist, as I just 
mentioned. I want to apply the Constitution as our Founding Fathers 
meant.
  Alexander Hamilton and James Madison famously disagreed about the 
meaning of ``general welfare'' and the limits to Congress' spending. 
Madison wanted the clause to be very, very narrowly interpreted, and 
Hamilton wanted a bit broader interpretation.
  Now, if Alexander Hamilton were to walk into the doors of this U.S. 
House today, he would be absolutely shocked and chagrined at how much 
liberty we have lost, because he never, as a Federalist, envisioned the 
size and scope of government today. I think if he knew what was going 
on today, a little over 200 years since the Constitution was passed, 
ratified, he would be arguing just like I am today.
  Yet the Founders, as they laid out in the Federalist Papers, neither 
Madison nor Hamilton would have agreed with the modern-day view that 
there are no limitations whatsoever on Congress' power to spend and 
that ``general welfare'' means whatever Congress, the President, and 
the Courts say that it means, even though a sort of Federalist would 
not agree that we have an open invitation to have whatever kind of 
government that we want to have.
  Today, no project seems too local or too narrow, which is a big part 
of why this country is buried in so much debt--$14.5 trillion. And then 
if you look at the finance gap, it's over $200 trillion.
  The powers of Congress are not unlimited, which is why we must get 
back to the basics of the Constitution, and we are going to talk 
tonight about that original intent of the general welfare clause and 
highlight just how far we have moved away from it.
  James Madison, number 41, in the Federalist Papers, wrote this:
  ``Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, 
have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution''--well, it 
sounds like that today, doesn't it--``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'''--
  We just showed you that. That is in article 1, section 8, clause 1 of 
the Constitution.
  As he goes on, ``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.''
  Now, that's that old kind of language. Basically, he was saying that 
it is inane to think that the general welfare clause, this clause, can 
allow the Congress to pass laws about anything, collect taxes, et 
cetera, collect anything. No stronger proof could be given.
  Under the distress, that means under the problems that are going to 
arise, under which these writers labor, the Supreme Court today, the 
President today, the last President, Republican and Democratic 
Presidents for the last many decades, labor for objections, and they 
are stooping to such a misconstruction.
  He was very, very clear. We do not have the power to do so. We don't 
have the power to do so.
  James Madison, Federalist 45:
  ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal 
Government are few and defined.'' They are defined. Article 1, section 
8, other articles, strictly interpreted, strictly defined, strictly 
according to what it says, not of broadening of those powers, few and 
defined, ``to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, 
peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.''
  James Madison in Federalist 45 was saying basically right here what 
the primary purpose of the Federal Government is: It's national 
defense, national security, foreign affairs. And also in the 
Constitution we have the rights to postal roads, post offices, things 
like that, to establish a currency to make this one Nation.
  But the principal purpose of the Federal Government and the original 
intent of the Constitution is national defense, national security, and 
foreign affairs. The American people need to understand that firmly. 
That's foreign commerce.
  We see over and over again the Courts defining general welfare in a 
different manner, much different manner. In fact, the Courts have held 
that anything that has to do with anybody's welfare, an individual's 
welfare, is okay under the Constitution, but that's not the original 
intent. The original intent was the general welfare, the general 
welfare of the Nation, not welfare of individuals.
  We have developed this big welfare system in this country. It all 
started in earnest with Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt just exploded the size 
and scope of government through his New Deal--both Progressives; both 
had socialist beliefs.
  In fact, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent his advisers, his closely 
held friends, his Cabinet people, to go visit with Stalin in Communist 
Russia to study what he was doing, what Stalin was doing there so that 
FDR could replicate it here in the United States, and he did everything 
that he possibly could to do so. He packed the Courts because the 
Courts originally said the welfare clause, commerce clause, could not 
be expanded to include all this size and scope of government.
  Thomas Jefferson: ``Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for 
the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.'' Back to 
article I, section 8.
  When my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, vote for things 
that are not enumerated in the original intent, they are violating 
their oath of

[[Page 5784]]

office. Every single one of us has stood up here and has taken an oath 
of office.
  The first I time I did that was when I was sworn in the Marine Corps, 
1964; when I came to Congress in a special election in 2007, and then 
again in 2009, and then again this year. I stood right here in this 
Chamber and I held up my hand, and I swore to uphold the Constitution 
against powers both foreign and domestic. One of the greatest domestic 
powers that is anti-Constitution resides right in this House, right in 
this House, because we are destroying our liberty.

                              {time}  1950

  We are destroying it by the philosophy of big government. Thomas 
Jefferson said, ``They are not to do anything they please.''
  Seventy years ago, in a court case called United States v. Butler, we 
started moving into this loosey-goosey idea about the Constitution 
being anything that a court says that it is, anything that a President 
says that it is, and anything that the Congress says that it is. And we 
have seen just recently where Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law. 
President Bush said, we will let the Supreme Court tell us whether it 
is constitutional or not. Well, the Supreme Court is not the final 
arbiter of what is constitutional. Neither is the President. Neither is 
Congress. We all have something to say about that, certainly. So do the 
States.
  We the people are actually the final arbiter. We the people need to 
demand original intent of the Constitution by becoming knowledgeable 
about it. The final arbiter of what is constitutional or not is what is 
in the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers said about it, not 
what some Supreme Court ruling has said about it, because most Supreme 
Court justices have no clue what the original intent is and don't care. 
They just don't care I don't think.
  United States v. Butler 70 years ago dismissed Madison's and 
Jefferson's narrow view of the Constitution, the original intent of the 
Constitution, and the Supreme Court held that the power to tax and 
spend is an independent power, and the general welfare clause gives 
Congress the power it might not derive elsewhere.
  In Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even 
more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose 
taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost 
entirely to its own discretion, our own discretion. Even more recently, 
the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the States into 
adopting national standards by threatening to withhold Federal funds in 
South Dakota v. Dole.
  Today, the Hamiltonian view predominates in the application of the 
general welfare clause, which has led to the expansion of the 
government to its $4.5 trillion debt. We spend up here without 
considering the repercussions. ObamaCare is a great example. ObamaCare 
is a destroyer. It's going to destroy jobs. It's going to destroy 
budgets, people's budgets, companies' budgets, cities' budgets, States' 
budgets, and the Federal budget. And it's going to destroy the quality 
of health care. And we have no constitutional authority, as a judge in 
Florida upheld.
  James Madison a little later on in his life wrote a letter to James 
Robertson in 1831. In this letter he said, ``With respect to the words 
'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the 
detail of powers connected with them.'' Connected with them. In other 
words, those things in article 1, section 8 and the rest of the 
Constitution as it was intended. ``To take them in a literal and 
unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a 
character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its 
creators.'' The creators of the Constitution are those folks who wrote 
it and those folks who ratified it.
  This literal and unlimited interpretation is destroying America. It's 
destroying our economy. It's destroying everything that has been good 
in this Nation. We need to cut our outrageous spending for the well-
being of our Nation and apply the general welfare clause as James 
Madison originally intended.
  It's got to stop. Mr. Speaker, when I come to the floor to vote or 
when I write legislation, my staff and I write legislation, we have a 
four-way test that I apply to every vote I make and everything I do 
here. The first question is, ``is it right?'' By that question I mean, 
is it morally right? Does it follow the Judeo-Christian biblical 
principles that this Nation was founded upon? A lot of liberals across 
this country who are watching this will start blogging, and some of the 
liberal news media will say that I want to set up a theocracy here in 
America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Founding Fathers 
didn't want a theocracy either. Freedom of religion in the First 
Amendment is very dear to me. It's very dear to all of us. But we have 
freedom of religion in this country so that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, 
Hindus, atheists, humanists, yes, even Christians, can make a personal 
choice of what their religion is and can celebrate and worship in their 
religion as long as it doesn't infringe upon somebody else's rights, 
because this Nation was founded upon biblical principles, the 
principles of freedom and liberty.
  We have gotten away from it. I believe so much in these four 
questions that I have them printed up. If somebody comes to my office, 
they'll see them on the desk of all my legislative people in my 
offices. There's a copy on my desk. It's on the home page of both of my 
Web sites. I wish every Member of Congress would apply these four 
principles. Is it right? Is it constitutional in it original intent? 
Not this perverted idea of the Constitution that Presidents, 
Congresses, and the Federal court systems operate under. Is it 
necessary? And can we afford it? Four simple questions.
  You see, we've gotten away from the original intent of the 
Constitution. We've created this huge Federal Government that has taken 
our freedom away. It's killing our liberty and our Nation. And it's 
because of a perverted idea of the general welfare clause, as well as 
the commerce clause and the elastic clause, that the courts have 
allowed this to happen, the Presidents and the Congresses have allowed 
it to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, we the people need to stand up and say no to taking our 
liberty away. Our Founding Fathers over and over again during the 
original period would rush to the floor with this book in hand, the 
holy Bible, and they would come to the floor, the House and the Senate, 
go to the floor of the Constitutional Convention and say, look what I 
found, what our Creator says. Benjamin Franklin proposed prayer in the 
Constitutional Convention. We pray today every day that Congress opens 
because of that prayer that Benjamin Franklin recommended.
  In his speech, and I encourage you to go read it, he said, if our 
Creator notices when a bird falls to the ground, how can we build a 
nation without the help of Providence, of our God, our Creator?
  You see, the Constitution was written on biblical principles. In 
fact, our Founding Fathers quoted the holy Bible more than any other 
source. David Barton has a ministry in Aledo, Texas, called 
WallBuilders. He has more original source documents than probably 
anybody. He wrote a book called ``Original Intent: The Courts, the 
Constitution, and Religion.'' I highly recommend this, too. 
WallBuilders is a great resource of what the original intent is and 
what our Founding Fathers have said about the Constitution.

                              {time}  2000

  But, you see, back to something I mentioned earlier, God says in 
Hosea 4:6: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
  I have heard that beginning line preached a number of times, but very 
seldom do I hear a pastor go past that line. The whole verse says, and 
remember, this is a promise from a holy, righteous God that can do 
nothing else but fulfill the promise. His promise is this when he spoke 
through Hosea to the Israelites, he speaks to us today, our Creator 
says: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have 
rejected knowledge, I also

[[Page 5785]]

will reject you from being priest for me. Because you have forgotten 
the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
  And I get goose bumps and shivers every time I say that, literally, 
because it is a promise from a holy, righteous God that can do nothing 
else but fulfill that promise.
  You see, the future of our Nation depends upon we the people, the 
most powerful political force in this Nation becoming knowledgeable, 
becoming knowledgeable about the Constitution, getting a copy, looking 
at it online. In my district, people can come by my office and get a 
copy. We give them away by the hundreds out of my office here in 
Washington. Get a copy of the ``Federalist Papers.'' Or if you don't 
want to read it in old-style English, get the ``Federalist Papers'' in 
modern language, this document.
  Read what our Founding Fathers said about the Constitution. Read the 
anti-Federalist Papers. Those are the guys who did not want a strong 
Federal Government. But you will see in the ``Federalist Papers,'' 
those who argued for a strong central government, we have enumerated, 
very limited and defined powers as James Madison states, Thomas 
Jefferson states.
  Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen once said when he feels the heat, 
he sees the light. Members of Congress in the House and the Senate, 
need to see the light by feeling the heat of we the people.
  You see, in Psalms 11, God asked the question: If the foundations be 
destroyed, what are the righteous to do?
  God has given us free will. He has given us freedom. He has given us 
liberty, unlike any society ever in history has seen, ever experienced; 
but we are losing it. And the only way we are going to put it back on 
the right course is for people to become knowledgeable about the 
foundational principles so that we can put this country back on a solid 
foundation so it is not built on shifting sand so that we can change 
the course of history.
  The direction we are heading today is going to destroy everything 
that has been good about this country. It is going to destroy our 
liberty. We are not going to have the freedom that we have enjoyed, 
even in the past few decades, which is much less freedom than they 
experienced in this country 100 years ago.
  Look at these questions. I think they are very reasonable. Is it 
right? Does it fit the Judeo-Christian principles the Nation was 
founded upon? Is it constitutional in its original intent, not this 
perverted idea that we are operating on today? Do we need it? And can 
we afford it? If we went to these questions, we wouldn't have $14.5 
trillion of debt. We wouldn't have all of the unfunded liabilities of 
the Federal Government which are tremendous. We wouldn't have the loss 
of liberty and freedoms that we see going on here today. We wouldn't 
have a lot of the debates that we have here in Congress.
  We the people need to start holding every single Member of Congress, 
every President, every public official, local, State, as well as 
Federal, because they all take that same oath, to defend the 
Constitution. The vast, vast majority are violating that oath; and the 
only way that we the people are going to change things, the only way we 
are going to put this country back on the right course is for we the 
people to demand it.
  So please contact your neighbors, your friends, get them to read the 
Constitution. Read the ``Federalist Papers.'' Read what our Founding 
Fathers said about government. Understand how far we have gotten away 
from those original principles, how much we have lost our freedom, how 
much we have gotten away from liberty and how close we are to becoming 
a socialistic, communistic nation in this country. That is where we are 
headed.
  The only way it is going to change is if the American people will 
stand up and demand something different, start throwing people out of 
office that violate their oath of office, and put people in office that 
are going to stand firm for freedom, for liberty.
  I am going to stand firm for the Constitution as it was intended, and 
I am going to continue to fight for the Constitution as it was 
intended. There are precious few here in this body that will stand and 
even vote that way. The only way we are going to change it, the only 
way we are going to save America, is for we the people to stand up and 
demand it.
  I believe we can; I believe we will. I believe we are at the 
beginning right now today of a new dawn in America, a dawn of liberty, 
a dawn of freedom, a dawn of limited government, a dawn of strong 
national defense and national security, a dawn where our children and 
grandchildren are going to grow up in an economically prosperous Nation 
where there are going to be jobs in the private sector, where people 
are going to be able to operate within their society without all of the 
constraints of government.
  We have got to demand it. The future of this country depends upon it. 
Your children and your grandchildren depend upon it. Join in the fight.

                          ____________________