A Brief Review of Senator Hatch’s Votes on Unconstitutional Bills by Scott Bradley

In 2006 Scott Bradley ran as the Constitution party’s nominee against Senator Hatch for the U.S. Senator. Note, prior to joining the Constitution Party, Scott was a long-time active member of the Republican party. During his campaign is produced the following short list of votes by Senator Hatch that expand the power of the Federal government beyond its Constitutional bounds. Scott graciously gave me permission to share this with you.

Scott is a recognized Constitutional authority. He has testified before congress on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, has developed curriculum to help everyday citizens build an understanding of the Constitution, and is a frequent lecturer on the topic. You can learn more about Scott and get copies of his books and lectures at his website “Preserve the Nation”.

While you may not agree with Scott’s opinions on the merits or flaws of individual measures, what cannot be argued is that Senator Hatch has repeatedly voted in the affirmative to expand the scope and reach of the Federal government. You may believe that these increases were made necessary because of exigent circumstances or you may believe that they are simply good policy. I however believe that the Senator’s support for such measures are indicative of someone who believes that the Federal government can be the solution for all problems. I would rather have someone in office who believes that the Federal government has limited powers, as outlined in the Constitution, and that to be an effective branch of government (notice the word branch not tree) it needs to stay within the bounds of its charter.

Here is Scott’s list. Note, I’ve added links where appropriate and made a few small changes:

---

US Sovereignty:  Contrary to explicit Constitutional requirements (see US Constitution Article I Section 8 clause 3), he has been a strong advocate of the establishment of international bodies, and unconstitutionally delegating to them the regulation of commerce conducted by the United States with foreign nations.  These efforts include support for NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc.

Education: In spite of the fact that no authority is delegated to the national government by the Constitution to meddle in the field of education, he has supported un-Constitutional (see Amendments 9 and 10) federal educational legislation (e.g. “No Child Left Behind”), which dramatically infringe upon the authority of state and local governments to establish local educational standards.

War: In spite of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress has the authority to take the Nation into war (see US Constitution  Article I Section 8 clause 11), he has on numerous occasions supported the involvement of the United States military in wars which have not been constitutionally declared, he has un-constitutionally voted to delegate to the President the authority to go to war, and has used United Nations Resolutions and authority as justification for such unauthorized military action (example: see Iraq War Resolution, 10 October 2002).

Erosion of Liberty: While claiming to be a “conservative constitutionalist,” and having “privileged” information that is not available to most Americans, he has consistently proceeded to vote away God-given constitutionally protected liberties because of his perception of necessity (e.g. the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, which eviscerates the 4th Amendment, and puts at risk many other cherished safeguards of American liberty).

Stem Cell Research: In 2005 he co-sponsored a bill which would have committed  federal funding for embryonic Stem Cell Research.  This in spite of a complete lack of Constitutional authority for the federal government to grant funds for any such purpose.

Constitution Convention: He was one of the primary promoters of a call for a national constitutional convention, an act which would most likely have resulted in the loss of our priceless current Constitution. For additional information please see my post, “To Con-Con or Not.”. Scott’s video below also offers an in depth perspective on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention.

Scott Bradley covers in detail the many flaws in the proposed Balanced Budget Amendments; as well as the flaws and the risks in the movement supporting the amendment.

Crime Bills: Throughout his thirty-six years in the Senate he has sponsored and promoted multiple “Crime Bills” which designate crimes which are clearly beyond the scope of power granted to the national government within the Constitution as federal crimes, including the crimes of rape and domestic violence (see Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – Hatch was one of three co-sponsors of S.1607 which was superseded by HR3355). This measure dramatically increase federal police powers into areas previously reserved to the states (see Amendments 9 and 10).

Hate Crimes: He has sponsored federal “Hate Crimes” legislation in violation of constitutional limits placed upon federal authority over crime, and the constitutional reservation of authority over domestic crimes to the states (see Amendments 9 and 10)

Senate Bill 8: On January 21, 1993 introduced “Senate Bill 8,” a federal crimes bill which, in violation of the 5th Amendment, would have allowed the taking of private property from individuals upon being accused of a crime, as well as dramatic expansion of federal crimes jurisdiction.

Child Care:  Has promoted federal “Child Care” legislation (e.g. CHIPS in 97) in violation of constitutional authority (see Amendments 9 and 10).

National Endowment of the Arts (NEA):  During his tenure in the Senate, he has cast multiple votes in favor of funding the National Endowment of the Arts (e.g he voted to table John Ashcroft’s amendment to eliminate funding for the NEA in S.2237)—An un-constitutional  grant of monies from the national treasure to a foundation which has been used to promote obscene and denigrating material.  No authority is granted within the US Constitution for such expenditures.

Supreme Court Nominees: While Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, he brought the names of both Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer to President Bill Clinton as suggested nominees to the United States Supreme Court, and which, after their nomination by Clinton, he used all of his official power to assure that they would be seated on the Supreme Court—this in spite of their known perverse perspective in regards to the written Constitution, and the limits of power placed upon the national government by the US Constitution. The following are quotes from “Gentleman of the State” by Lee Roderick (p 148-149), an authorized biography of Senator Hatch.

"In March 1993, the only Democratic nominee left on the Supreme Court, Byron White, a friend of Hatch's announced his retirement....As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Hatch was besieged by reporters asking whom he thought President Clinton should nominate. The Senator offered a number of names...Judge Stephen Breyer, who Hatch had helped put on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980, was another name he put forward. Hatch also suggested Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the D.C. appellate court. ...

“Within a week, Clinton announced his nominee was Ginsburg. Led by Hatch, she sailed through the Judiciary Committee and was confirmed by the full Senate, taking her seat on the high court in August 1993.
“In Spring 1994 Justice Harry Blackmun retired, giving President Clinton an opportunity to name a second member of the Supreme Court. Again he telephoned Hatch for counsel. ...

“Hatch encouraged Clinton instead to focus on several other potential nominees, including Breyer... Clinton took Hatch’s advice and nominated Breyer, who was confirmed to become the ninth member of the current Supreme Court.”