Now that I have your attention with a provocative title. Of course the leftist have a unique spin on this and also a hypocritical one. Thom Hartman has a factual depiction of the original TEA party as far as it goes.
Of course Thom ignores the fact that that is exactly what most TEA party activist protest against. Most TEA party activist are against “crony capitalism” in favor of true capitalism. But it is an over simplification of what actually happened. While Thom mention the Townsend act he failed to mention the significance of it. First England imposed a tax on paper, paint, lead, glass, and tea that were imported into the colonies. These were items that were not produced in North America and that the colonists were only allowed to buy from Great Britain. As a result of the Townsend Act the patriots resorted to smuggling and the “Tea Act” was England’s response to that Smuggling. The “crony capitalism” enlisted by both parties violate every principle that the founders fought against. From Obamacare which entailed backroom deals with “Big Pharma” and the insurance companies. to Seat belt laws which were lobbied for by the auto insurance companies. You will find corporate lobbying behind almost every statist law including smoking bans. If you watch John Stossel’s “Illegal Everything” and do a little digging you will find a corporate lobbyist behind every one of the laws passed.
Of course the abuse of power doesn’t end there. There are similarities to what is taking place now and the “Stamp Act” and the “Writs of Assistance Act” These acts are the reason for two of the amendments in the bill of rights namely the third and the fourth amendments.
- No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yet today our government through secret FISA warrants are Seizing phone and internet records .
dd>I include the following video because it is a humorous take on a famous quote by Ben Franklin.
Of course this all violates the constitution in every respect. First the information is seized without any warrant whatsoever. Remember the fourth amendment, particularly this part; “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So according to our constitution warrant first seizure second a point that our lawmakers ignore. But then through the patriot act they created a secret court (FISA) not subject to review by the people to determine who may have access to this illegally seized information.But exactly how did our federal government amass such power. For that you have to go back to the first progressive era. Like all socialistic forms of government it’s all about control. Prior to the first progressive era power did belong to the states. There were not an alphabet soup of agencies that regulated every aspect of our lives. Such power is not possible without large amounts of cash. And under the Constitution that was not possible because under the Constitution money not used to pay for national debt or the defense of the nation had to be returned to the states according to census.United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
As you can see the way the constitution was intended everyone was to pay their fair share of government. Enter the progressive era and the income tax.
United States Constitution 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Of course you see nothing about a progressive tax in the sixteenth amendment which is by intent a socialistic redistribution scheme. The progressive tax also had the benefit of shifting the tax burden on a lesser amount of people so less people would complain about the increased spending and expansion of government as they did not have to pay for that expansion. And of course the most offensive part of the 16th amendment “without apportionment” gave the federal government powers that it was never intended to have by using the tax money as a weapon over the states. If the states refused to comply with rules xyz imposed by the federal government, the federal government could deny them their share of the tax money.
Contrary to popular public opinion the majority of the powers were intended to belong to the states which is clearly stated in the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So contrary to progressive thinking most of the federal agencies that have been created since the first progressive era have no basis in the constitution for their existence, unless the constitution strictly calls for the existence of the FDA, those rights and responsibilities belong to the states, the same goes for the EPA,BATF etc etc etc. We have seen countless abuses of power in all of the agencies with the last with the IRS has
hassling TEA Party patriots and other conservative organizations.
Of course the stripping of states rights didn’t end there. The senate originally was intended to represent the states. The whole state and not a populace view of the states.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Of course the intent of creating the senate was to protect the minority viewpoint. It was to protect the smaller states from the more populace states. That is why each state has only two senators. Each state has equal power at the table. But this scheme also insured that the entire state was represented, not a populace view overpowered by cities with high population trampling the voice of the less populated rural areas. The power of urban elections can be clearly seen in elections such as president. Obama won but the electoral map tells a different story.
It was the progressive 17th amendment that stripped this minority voice in favor of a more populace view. Of course this led to the advent of the era when senators started representing special interest rather then the states that sent them there as pointed out by judge starting about three minutes in.
So while Thom Hartman is correct about the specifics of the actual Tea Party, it’s modern equivalent the “TEA Party” has much more in common with the original patriots then Thom suggests.