November 21st, 2011

My Letter to a Senator Hatch Re-Election Campaign Staffer

This weekend, I received the following email:

Connor,

My name is Matthew Skanchy and I am the Area Captain over Utah County for Senator Hatch’s campaign. I called you recently, but I wasn’t able to reach you and I wanted to send you an email to provide you with my contact information.

I would love to hear about your opinion on re-electing Orrin. I would also be happy to try and answer any questions or concerns you might have regarding specific issues relating to your opinion of Senator Hatch.

I hope you have a great week.

Best,

Matthew Skanchy
Area Captain
Hatch Election Committee

This was my reply:

Mr. Skanchy,

I must confess that your email suprised me. I assumed that I had long ago been stricken from Senator Hatch’s list of delegates to contact and court, as I am publicly and emphatically opposed to this re-election bid. I know most of the main staffers on this, his seventh campaign, and have been extremely open about my views in this regard.

Nevertheless, you said you “would love to hear about [my] opinion on re-electing Orrin.” If you knew me, you’d know that I never turn down a request to share my opinion, so here goes… nothing? I note that you go to BYU, so I assume you will not consider it inappropriate for me to toss in a few scriptural references as I proceed.

In D&C 98:10, we are commanded to support honest, good, and wise men. I have heard several stories about Senator Hatch which suggest he is a good man. (I have heard some stories about the opposite, too.) Likewise, I have heard mixed responses on the Senator’s honesty. But these are mostly personal characteristicts of which I have little concern as they relate to public policies.

So let’s focus on the “wise” aspect. For one who has, for over three and a half decades, been in a position of public trust and legislative authority, this personal characteristic has very public implications. For if a Senator is not wise, then he may be doing damage to the very principles and policies he claims to support.

Noah Webster, in his landmark 1828 dictionary, defined wisdom as “discriminating between what is true and what is false.” Thus, to be wise, one must be correct; only when founded upon truth can an individual claim the characteristic. But upon what metric are Senator Hatch’s actions to be judged in order to determine whether they are correct?

That metric is, of course, the U.S. Constitution — a document to which Senator Hatch has pledged his allegiance in having taken the oath of office six times now. He has committed to God his intent to support and defend it. Thus, if he has been wise, and correct, he would have reconciled each of his thousands of votes to that document; one cannot be a wise (correct) legislator while advocating policies that run afoul of the Constitution’s clear mandates.

This is especially important for a Latter-day Saint such as the Senator, who is told by God to “befriend[] that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6). So my rhetorical question is: has the Senator been wise/correct and voted, for the past 35 years, in harmony with the Constitution for which he has pledged numerous oaths?

The answer to any impartial observer — meaning campaign staffers working towards his re-election don’t count — is a resolute, absolute NO.

Let’s look at a few of the many legislative initiatives Senator Hatch has supported which violate the Constitution:

  • He co-sponsored a bill which included an individual mandate for health care.
  • He voted for Medicare Part D.
  • He voted for and sponsored SCHIP.
  • He voted for TARP.
  • He voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • He voted for the automobile industry bailout.
  • He voted to establish the Department of Education.
  • He voted for farm subsidy programs.
  • He voted to expand the role of the federal government in child care.
  • He voted against denying federal funds to the NEA.
  • He votes for undeclared wars, the PATRIOT Act, foreign aid, welfare programs, warrantless searches, AIDS programs, and a litany of other unconstitutional policies and programs.

These are some of the many anti-constitutional votes he has cast which are clearer in their opposition to the document he has sworn an oath to uphold. Numerous others exist which are important and likewise build a case to demonstrate Senator Hatch’s lack of wisdom.

It’s perhaps possible that you are unaware of these and related votes which betray the Senator’s claim to a conservative mantle, whatever the American Conservative Union may have to say on the matter. You may even be supportive of the above-listed votes, and likewise position yourself as a domestic enemy to the Constitution. Or perhaps as a student you were simply looking for resume-building opportunity and are excited to work on the Senator’s re-election campaign, hoping that it will help your own career. I don’t know.

But what I do know, Mr. Skanchy, is this:

Anybody who claims to support the Constitution, or defend individual liberty, or who sincerely wishes to limit the size and scope of the federal government, must deny to Orrin Hatch the opportunity of a seventh six-year term — that is, if they are to be consistent in the application of their alleged principles and priorities. Those who have repeatedly violated the Constitution should not be sent to Washington with another opportunity to swear an oath in its support.

It’s unwise for a woman to marry a serial adulterer and hope for any sort of fidelity. Similarly, it is unwise for a Constitution-supporting citizen to offer any sort of support to a candidate who, as a legislator, has so often cast votes in opposition to the document he has sworn on oath to uphold.

I hope that you, too, have a great week. Mine will be great, as you hoped for, as I will be taking advantage of several opportunities to educate delegates and concerned citizens throughout the state as to why Senator Hatch is no friend of the Constitution, how he has consistently proven himself unwise, and why he should be summarily denied re-election to the position he has held since 1976, before you or I were even alive.

Connor Boyack
Precinct Chair, LE18
Editor, www.dethronehatch.com

34 Responses to “My Letter to a Senator Hatch Re-Election Campaign Staffer”

  1. Eran
    November 21, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    Orrin Hatch is a tool who should have been booted from office years ago. Apparently Bob Bennett getting booted last go around has put Hatch’s campaign into over drive. He sends me a crap load of email. All I did was send an email complaint and now I can’t get off his email list.

    Here is a couple of other Hatch improprieties.
    Orrin Hatch Sucking Up to Sell More Records

  2. Arden
    November 21, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    I’m no fan of Hatch but this self-righteous response says a lot more of your poor and selective understanding of the Constititio than it does Sen.Hatch’s failures to lead, which are many. I recommend you step back and remember to live and observe humbly not with the self-congratulatory tone I read here, lest you be lead astray by the echo chamber that is the voices in your own head. Pride and arrogance aren’t tells of a wise man.

  3. Dave P.
    November 21, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    Here’s a story that might be of interest to anyone who wants to get rid of Orrin Hatch in the next election as spoken by Dr. Cleon Skousen.

    “Hatch was originally elected with the help of Dr. Skousen, who believed in him as a constitutional replacement for Sen. Moss. He was elected in 1976 and was originally
    close to the Constitution with his votes. But during the 1980s he began to vote for unconstitutional measures and this upset some prominent businessmen in Salt Lake,
    all of whom originally backed Hatch. Six of them complained to Dr. Skousen and he arranged for a meeting at his house so that the differences could be smoothed out. So the six men came to Skousen’s house along with Hatch, and they talked it out. Hatch said, ‘I know I voted
    for some socialistic measures that I ordinarily would not have done, but I had to do it in order to get the necessary votes for measures, like the CUP, which you gentlemen wanted from me to pass in Congress. It’s a
    question of tit for tat. Can you tell me how I could have done it any other way?’

    “The men were stunned into silence. They couldn’t
    think of anything to say. That ended the meeting. That shows how Hatch is just another deal maker and will vote for unconstitutional measures just to get what he wants. In other words, he’ll vote for pork barrel in Massachusetts in order to get pork barrel for Utah. That, in itself, is two strikes against the Constitution. About a year ago, during the campaign when Bennett lost his Senate seat, that he
    (Hatch) never voted for anything unconstitutional, but he admitted that he did at that meeting in Dr. Skousen’s house. We really need to replace him because he’s not only a typical politician who will sell himself for power and position, but a liar as well.”

    Along with that, there’s Hatch’s role in helping to cover up the FBI’s failure to prevent 9/11 (regardless of how you believe it happened) as documented in retired FBI supervisor Dennis Williams’s book, “Fidelity, Inegrity, Bravery? No way!”

    This guy needs to go!

  4. M
    November 21, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Arden, you might be reading too much between the lines. Don’t condemn Connor for speaking the truth because you perceive a tone of self-righteousness.

    Dave P., do you have a source for what you put in quotes. Good story, but is it actually true? It sounds like it might be fiction.

    Good response Connor.

  5. David
    November 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    Just curious, Arden. Where are Connor’s constitutional mistakes?

  6. Jennifer Austin
    November 21, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    “It’s unwise for a woman to marry a serial adulterer and hope for any sort of fidelity.”

    You are a wise man :)

    I actually really appreciated that you made a list of issues you have with Senator Hatch. I often find that those who support him can’t really tell me why. (Except maybe the de-listing of grey wolves)

  7. mark
    November 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    I’m not a fan of Sen. Hatch. But I do know that he will be re-elected until #1 He decides to retire or #2 They carry him feet-first out of the Senate chambers when he dies on the Senate Floor at the age of 102.

  8. Holly
    November 22, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    Connor, I LOL’d at this. I *am* off the recruiting list – how sweet that you were not. Until now. @Mark: Hatch will lost to Dan Liljenquist, someone who has actually DONE something. In his freshman term as a Utah state Senator, he architected, shepherded and passed 2 of the most substantive pieces of legislation in Utah history – pension reform and Medicaid reform. He was told it couldn’t be done, he was patted on the head and told he needed more seniority but he did it anyway. I can guarantee, he won’t need until 2048 to start to be effective.

  9. Cliff
    November 22, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    Most of Orrin’s votes you point to pre-date his last election. Why suddenly now do you no longer support Hatch? I dont remember the Utah GOP of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008, being so critical of Orrin Hatch.

    Just curious. Whats changed?

  10. Paul
    November 22, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Thoughtful post.

    Other than this past year, Orrin’s voting record is poor. It appears he’s had a deathbed conversion and is carfully tracking Lee to know what real conservatives do. Thats nice, but its fake.

    The simple fact is that Orrin has been in office too long. His values have softened over the yeras. The country gets worse every year hes there.

    And telling us we need to reelect him for the 7th time because he will chair Finance is amusing. We should vote against him BECAUSE he will chair Finance.

  11. Brint Baggaley
    November 22, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    I agree with the substance of Connor’s post. However, I think that in order to be effective (in convincing others) we need to realize that there are multiple sides to everything. Early on, Hatch did an outstanding job of blocking forced unionization by organizing what was a record filibuster at the time. Everyone who lives in a ‘right to work’ state should hold some gratitude to Orrin. Also early on, he defended the Electoral College which was a part of the Constitution then under attack. Justice Thomas sits on the bench very much thanks to Sen. Hatch. Hatch has always been a big player in the Senate (for good or not). To say he hasn’t done anything is to not understand beyond critics one liners.

    As is the case with just about eveyone in politics, there is a Jekyll and Hyde aspect. Connor has well summed up Hatch’s problem areas. I agree with Connor. I believe Hatch has simply been in Washington too long (seems to have adopted the mentality) and now is the time to replace him with someone who is fully committed to defending the Constitution. I think we will be able to do this only if we understand exactly who Hatch is and present a fair case rather than simply regurgitate old anti-Hatch lines that have no basis in reality.

  12. Jim Davis
    November 22, 2011 at 11:08 pm #

    Cliff,

    If you’ve been reading Connor’s blog you’ll know he’s consistently been outspoken against Hatch’s policies even through the years you’ve listed. He’s not a party hack who conveniently turns a blind eye to the actions of his party.

    But you bring up a good point…Many republicans are just recently being outspoken. “What changed?” is a good question. I believe most of it has to do with party spirited individuals (within both major parties) being more involved when their party is not in power and falling asleep when their party is in power. Most republicans didn’t object to the socialist Medicare D that Bush & Co passed because they trusted their party. Likewise, most democrats don’t object to the expansion of warfare that Obama & Co expand because they trust their party as well. If the opposite party were to do the very same things there would be wild opposition.

  13. Mark
    November 23, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    One word, AWESOME…way to go connor…Beside the Constitutional blunders, which are the most important, are we really going to give this man another six years the likes of which would make Robert Bryd smile. Holy begiz, retire already! I really questioned West Virgina voters, when their senator had to be rolled into the floor of Congress on a wheel chair! Not anything against older people, because some can serve, but come on; you are going to be 83 by the time you are done with your 7th term! Let other people serve! If in any event, in time, there needed to be term limits…this is that event! I know this might be taken as bad form; however, I dont think the Constitution ever imagined life politicans. My 80 year old grand father is retired…and most are…its time for you to be also. this is a differnt Mark

  14. Liz
    November 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    The response is intelligent but with a touch of over confidence, true. No matter, anyone who has been in Washington D. C. for OVER a quarter of a century has been compromised and used up, and HAS TO GO. Still, my biggest question would be, what’s the quality of the replacement? Another lightweight like Mike Lee? I know there’s some solid, proven conservatives somewhere in this state. Step up. I know the common belief is that you need name recognition and have to be CONNECTED to win in Utah, but I’d like to see competence challenge that program. Is Mattheson going to be the next governor? Problems keep piling up here.

  15. Camille Olson
    November 30, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    I really appreciate your honest response to Senator Hatch.

  16. John
    December 1, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

    I always find it fascinating that Orrin Hatch has almost 13,000 votes in the US Senate and people expect to agree with him all 13,000 times. I find that idea patently unreasonable and evidence of tunnel vision on the part of some. I would expect to support someone that I agree with 85 or 90 percent of the time.

  17. William
    December 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    I don’t care if people agree with the almost 13,000 votes Senator Hatch has cast. What I care about are how many of his almost 13,000 votes agree with the Constitution?

  18. John
    December 5, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    according to those whose opinions of the Constitution really matter, I would say the vast majority of his votes. I have opinions about the Constitution but my opinions don’t really matter. Other posters here may have opinions about the Constitution and those don’t really matter either. The opinions that really matter are those of the nine judges in black robes sitting in the Supreme Court chambers in the nation’s capital. If we want to leave the interpretation of the Constitution up to you and I perhaps we need to invite everyone else who has an opinion to have their vote as well.

  19. Ace
    December 5, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    No doubt that Hatch must go. Beside his many other failures, to me the most damaging to the Constitution has to do with the judiciary. Because our judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, interpret the Constitution, ensuring judicial appointments are made to wise judges who understand and honor it has been a key steardship of our esteemed senator. How has he done? Well, during President Clinton’s second term, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch was incredibly effective. He succeeded in confirming literally a record number of President Clinton’s judicial nominees. One would naturally assume that allowed him to accrue a substantial number of chits that could then be cashed in during the Bush years to ensure confirmation of wise, non-reconstructionist judges. We all know how that turned out: incredible delays, time and time again, of President Bush’s nominees, to the point of embarrassment, and ultimate failure in many cases. When Democratic staffers hacked the secure working documents and meeting notes of Republican Judiciary members in violation of Senate rules, Senator Hatch took no decisive action to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire and expose the breach. Epic fails!

  20. John
    December 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    Just a couple of facts that you have wrong there Ace. I will start at the back and work my way forward. The hacking you spoke of was done by Republican staffers (Manuel Miranda) who hacked Democrat secure working documents. Senator Hatch refused to use them because the hacking was a violation of Senate ethics rules. Look up Manuel Miranda on wili and you will quickly find that you have it backwards – he worked for the Senate Majority Leader at the time – Bill Frist.
    Second, if you look at the confirmation rates you will quickly see that the Judiciary Committee has been fairly even when it comes to judicial nominees showing, perhaps, a difference in the view of advise and consent rather than a political bias. Let me explain. Hatch was chairman in the104th, 105th 106th and for the first five months of the 107th Congress as well as the 108th. The 104th, 105th, and 106th were in the Clinton Administration while the 107th was the Bush II Administration. During this time period of the 104th through the 112th Congress either Hatch or Leahy have been chair of the committee. During that time we have had three presidents – Clinton for 6 years, Bush for 8 years, and now Obama for 3 years. When Hatch was chair during the Clinton years 267 judges were confirmed and 106 were rejected – a confirmation rate of 71%. When Hatch was again chairman, during the 108th Congress, when Bush was president, there were 120 judges confirmed and 28 rejected – a confirmation rate of 81% – as you might expect – a little higher. When Leahy has been chairman you see the following: When Leahy was chairman and Bush was president there were 226 judges confirmed and 170 rejected – a 57% confirmation rate. When Leahy was chairman and Obama was president there have been 117 judges confirmed and 73 rejected – a 62% confirmation rate. Let me summarize.

    Orrin Hatch confirmation rates
    81% for Republican Presidents
    71% for Democrat Presidents

    Patrick Leahy confirmation rates
    57% for Republican Presidents
    62% for Democrat Presidents

    I believe this reflects a correct reading of the Constitution by Senator Hatch that the Senate is to “Advice and Consent’ in the nominating process and not “dictate” nominees to the President who, after all, has been duly elected by the Electoral College. What this boils down to, and you are not alone in this, is that people determine how “wise” a judge is by how much they agree with that judge. If they agree with his interpretation of the law he is wise and if they disagree with his interpretation of the law he is unwise. This phenomenon is rampant on both sides of the American political spectrum.

  21. Adam
    December 6, 2011 at 4:24 am #

    John,

    You speak of those in black robes (the Supreme Court) as though they have the authority to mandate their opinions on the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government as well as on the governments of the States. This is not an uncommon opinion, but it is a wrong-headed one nonetheless. And its result has been devastating.

    The Justices were never intended to be the Grand Interpreters of the Constitution for the entire nation. Rather, they were to interpret the Constitution and laws in individual “cases and controversies” that came before them. Justice Marshall stated in Marbury vs Madison that, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

    However, he didn’t say it was not the duty of the other departments/branches/states to do the same. In fact, there was no question that they had such authority (they had been doing it for decades, even under Britain). The legislative and executive branches had to interpret the Constitution within their own roles, just as the Court had to be free to do so in its role. Each of the states’ officers also had that ability to act under their own best interpretations. To force them to act otherwise would require them to go against their conscience and thus break their oath.

    Each government body was designed to be a check against the others to force concensus before effective action. None was authorized to do the work of the other, and if any one body tried to do so, the other bodies would necessarily push back. Several of our founders spoke of this jealous virtue. Jealousy for one’s own power would direct even the less virtuous of political beings to be virtuous when it came to observance of the law.

    Anyway, back to the Supreme Court. The Court “found” a new power subsequent to Marbury vs Madison and became intoxicated with it, though they often were interpreting as accurately as possible. However, the true constitutionalists (not the “living-Constitution” folks) have been pushed back to a position of defense (starting with FDR’s attempt to pack the Court). They do not, and will not, hold the line of constitutionality. But the great thing is, they don’t have to.

    Guess what, we all have the responsibility to make sure we uphold the Constitution, and so does Senator Hatch. If he hasn’t, which I suspect is true from question I have asked him and voting records I have seen, then we shouldn’t look to the Courts but to the ballot box. WE MUST hold them accountable. That is our job.

    Adam

  22. Charmaine
    December 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Great post, great letter, I much enjoyed reading. Just one criticism. You could have just as easily said “It’s unwise for a *person* to marry a serial adulterer and hope for any sort of fidelity.” Men are known to make mistakes in marriage as much as women. That is all. (The feminist in us all thanks you.)

  23. Jim
    December 17, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Connor,
    Who is determining what is constitutional or not? Apparently many leaders have voted for things you feel are not right or constitutional? Why wasn’t these prevented or even apparent to anyone else?

    Its a living document which is periodically modified, and reinterpreted often. I know that LDS people feel its divinely inspired, but I take the view that its totally a human work, and it means different things to different people. I just find it curious that it doesn’t stop evil acts from happening.

    Some votes on the list I would definately agree as being things that should not have been passed, or even contemplated as a government act. However, I don’t see what is unconstitutional about AIDS programs. Is this the one that also includes a global fight against Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria? And the department of education? It curiously looks like one can argue for or against constitutionality based on if you agree with something or not.

  24. Adam
    December 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    Jim,

    You say that the Constitution is a living document, i.e. it “is periodically modified, and reinterpreted often.” A Constitution has no meaning without being fixed in its interpretation. Without a fixed meaning it doesn’t fix the rights of individuals nor the bounds and responsibilities of government any more than the current interpreter wants. Yes, the Constitution is a living document in the sense that it is able to be amended, and has been many times. But it is completely meaningless to call a constitution a living document in the sense that it can be “reinterpreted” by whoever is in charge.
    Now, if you are referring to the natural ambiguities that arise when writing law, then the meanings surely need to be filled in. However, those interpretations should not be “modern” interpretations. Instead, those interpretations should be aligned as closely as is possible to the understandings and intentions of those who drafted and argued over the document (e.g. delegates to Constitutional Convention and state Ratification Conventions). If that interpretation is out of step with modern jurisprudence, then it shouldn’t be too hard to amend the Constitution accordingly. But, no interpretive body should have the right (in whatever branch they be) to unilaterally amend the Constitution by “reinterpretation”.

  25. Jim
    December 19, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Adam,
    The abstract and general quality in listing rights in the consitution seems to be an intention to allow flexibility and change. How could these writers imagine every possible need and condition in the future? Is there a specific intention of maintaining a fixed understanding of what was written?

    You got me very curious. I looked up ages of various constitutions, and I was suprised that its actually a fairly new concept. There are also countries without a codified official constitution. However, the countries listed as examples appear to be very, very civil and fair in how they operate, govern and treat their citizens. They do however have a longer history of governing and law making than that of the United States. So there is continuity I suspect, and stability.

    Countries with constitutions for the most part seem to be countries that are new, and lack this history of law making. Maybe they took what they liked from the general sense of rights and responsibilites from their culture of origin. Perhaps adding what they thought would be nice and fair, and removing what they didn’t like.

  26. Jim
    December 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    Adam,
    I found another listing of constitutions of various countries in the world. There are more than I thought, and some countries are old,but have recent constitutions. I found the oldest one so far to be the Constitution of San Marino. At least its the oldest claimed working constitution.

    whats very interesting to note is that some countries had several complete revisions of their constitution.

  27. Crick
    December 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    “He votes for undeclared wars”.

    If a majority in Congress votes for it, then it is “declared”. While I too dislike the pc ways of modern times, I think you are misreading the Constitution to think that resolutions of authorization don’t meet Constitutional muster. The point is that Congress must give approval, which they did.

  28. Adam
    December 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    Crick,

    Whatever Senator Hatch’s involvement in congressional authorizations of war may be, as opposed to official declarations of war …

    A “declaration of war” is very different from “congressional approval” to go to war, unless such approval is openly declared to the enemy and all other potentially involved nations. The purpose of a declaration of war is to warn the enemy that the nation is now entering the “state of war” and to inform other nations of the reasons for the change. (For an example, see the last few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.)

    Clearly, after hostilities have commenced it is not necessary to inform them that they are entering a “state of war”. Yet, throughout our history, we have still officially declared war after being attacked (e.g. American Revolution, War of 1812, WWI, WWII).

    How often have our military been “congressionally approved” to attack pre-emptively, and to assassinate foreign dignitaries, and topple foreign governments? And how often have those “approvals” allowed action prior to clearly informing the enemy and the world of our intentions and purposes?

    Again, I am not entirely sure of Senator Hatch’s involvement with “undeclared” wars, but your statement that wars only need a “resolution[] of authorization” to “meet Constitutional muster” is missing the whole point.

  29. Camillia Olson
    December 22, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    The importance of each representative giving a yea or nay is relative to accountability to the people themselves in a balance of powers of reason and dialogue: to indicate that it is appropriate to give the president the power to decide and that “you are ok. with whatever he ( president ) decides is tantamount to treason in my opinion, for it is just that reason and dialouge and accountability to the people and the rule of law.. that is the esscense of America… In my opinion, Senator Hatch is removed from the genuine considerations of true principles and precedence and has buried himself in corporate interests and cannot hear the voice of the people … nor does he act in behalf of their protection..

  30. fred grant
    December 24, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    senater oran hatch is filled his pockets with money.hes sold his soul to oboma,and voted for most of his projects..i will never vote for the crooked morman again..i hope he gets the bob bennet boot.there are a lot of people hear in utah that are thoughly disgusted with the crook.hes voted for every pay increase for congrees and the senate and our country is in a hell of a mess and he is responsable for a lot of..he also follows what the morman prophet tells him to do..that why we dont need a morman president.because the morman church will be runing the country

  31. TRON
    December 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    @fred grant

    As someone who can’t stand Hatch I would like to see him gone also. But unlike you, I would like to see him replaced by a Democrat.

    By the way, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to write in sentences and paragraphs and get some of the spelling correct.

    It’s Orrin not oran, Obama not oboma, Mormon not morman, thoroughly not thoughly, here not hear, congress not congrees, responsible not responsable and running not runing.

    Though I am curious about how you made all your text blue.

  32. Phil Montano
    January 31, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Connor, I enjoy your report on KTKK with Jake Shannon. Keep up the good work. I just sent this to Mr. Hatch’s senate mail system.

    Topic: Desperate Re-election bid.

    I have been receiving your “Hatch Dispatch” e-mails recently, as well as your campaign mailings. One of the themes you revisit in your mailers is that it is “time for Utah to lead”. Where have you been for the last 36 years? Why the sudden onus to lead? You’ve had ample opportunity for three decades, yet we find you fail to do so in so many ways.

    To wit: You approved of the most recent NDAA and its odious detention BY THE MILITARY of United States citizens, and in fact voted against an amendment which would have prohibited United States citizens from being detained without trial.

    You voted for yet another “free trade agreement”, this one with Korea, when we’ve seen that all the previous free trade agreements have been little more than kicks in the teeth to American jobs and manufacturing.

    You continue to vote for extensions to the PATRIOT Act, legislation aimed entirely at limiting the freedoms of citizens of the United States.

    Even in the e-mail to which I’m responding, you mention your “strong opposition” to increasing the debt ceiling, yet you did not filibuster it to either defeat it or even make the symbolic point.

    Mr. Hatch, you have been in Washington since 1976, eighteen years longer than the senator you replaced, saying that he had lost touch with his constituents. Sir, I believe that you need to retire, and not run for re-election this year. You, like Senator Moss before you, have lost touch with your constituents.

  33. Blaine
    February 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Senator hatch describes himself as a conservative. Some conservative organizations describe him as conservative (one rated him at the 7th most conservative person in the Senate).

    I have come to realize that the terms conservative and constitutionalist and even libertarian are not synonymous. Many, perhaps most, self-styled conservatives and libertarirains favor at least one, usually multiple, unconstitutional agencies, laws, policies, and/or judicial rulings. It is among this sort of conservative that I must count Senator Hatch.

    As a retired military officer, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. My allegiance is to the Constitution — not to a political party, to any party leader, not to any politician (sorry, Senator Hatch, that includes you), not to any president, not even to the government.

    Senator Hatch took the same oath. But, far too often, his allegiance has been to his party, his party leadership, his president, and to compromise and complicity with enemies of the Constitution including his best buddy Ted Kennedy. He has almost always voted to confirm presidentially-nominated enemies to the Constitution including Ruth Bader Ginsburg (whom he even recommended) and Eric Holder. Connor listed only a tiny portion of the unconstitutional legislation he has voted for. Some of his votes have even unjustly deprived Americans of constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Neither is seniority nor a possible key chairmanship is not worth any of that.

    Since the dismissal of Bob Bennett, Senator Hatch has at least given the impression that he has gotten religion. He might be sincere. He might not be. I can’t tell. Regardless, no Senator should ever need a wake-up call to follow the Constitution.

    As for me, his time is up. It is time for him to join Senator Bennett in his nice, comfortable congressional retirement.

    Now, how do we get the other 50 states to vote their bums out too?

  34. Adam
    February 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Jim,

    In comment #25 you asked regarding the Constitution, “Is there a specific intention of maintaining a fixed understanding of what was written?” The answer: Absolutely! Without such a fixed understanding, a Constitution is meaningless to do anything but grant government unlimited authority. The Constitution has an Amendment process that is purposefully difficult to successfully navigate without widespread support … but isn’t that precisely what should be required to prevent the loss of our rights and protections from poorly prepared or diabolical changes.

    Now, parts of the Constitution were left intentionally “unspecific” by the authors. They couldn’t foresee every change of the future, being mere mortals like the rest of us. But words do still have common meanings, and in many cases interpreters can say at least what was definitely not intended by the authors. For example, the authors definitely did not intend the Commerce Clause (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 3) to prevent purely in-state and private sales of goods. Nor did the founders intend the Commerce Clause to require purchase of certain specific risk-sharing services like Health Insurance from the government or anyone for that matter. Yet that is precisely what we got in the statute upheld by the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn and in Obama Care.

    Again, words have meanings, even when left somewhat vague, and those words in the context of a Constitution should be interpreted as closely to the understandings of the authors and enactors as is possible.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.