Tea partiers take on McCain at Gilbert town hall meeting

As a result, McCain, R-Ariz., spent some of a town hall meeting at Gilbert Municipal Center on Monday defending his comments last week in the U.S. Senate, where he read from a Wall Street Journal editorial referring to "tea party hobbits."

McCain said he quoted the editorial to make a point about some Republicans' insisting on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution in exchange for agreeing to raise the nation's debt limit.

"What apology is in order?" McCain responded when asked if he would apologize. "What was wrong that I said?"

McCain continued: "There was no way that a balanced-budget amendment would have passed the Senate. If anyone said that it could, they were not being truthful. Hobbits are not real, and the point is that it was not real. You should not deceive people and say that something like a balanced-budget amendment could happen ...

"It's not my fault that it was misunderstood. I'm sorry that it was misunderstood."

McCain said that he has voted for a balanced-budget amendment 13 times, adding that it can become reality when "you have enough people committed to it." A Constitutional amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.

The nation's debt ceiling was raised after an agreement was reached between Congress and the Obama administration. However, Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating, and as McCain spoke, the Dow was en route to dropping 634.76 points.

In its report, S&P stated that the downgrade was, in part, "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced" with the debt-limit deal that calls for $2.1 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

But McCain suggested that the nation's $14.5 trillion debt reflected a spending - not a revenue - problem, and rejected raising taxes. He called for the nation's corporate-tax rate to be cut from 35 percent to 25 percent.

"We are paying a big price for unbridled spending," McCain said. "The U.S. fiscal situation is unsustainable, and it should be fixed ...

"I'm of the belief that you don't take money from people and give it to government in a time of a (slow economy)."

McCain said that current recipients of such programs as Social Security and Medicare should not have benefits cut, but future beneficiaries could be affected.

One Tea Party advocate scolded McCain as being part of the "old guard in Washington" that was around for the major drivers of the nation's debt over the last decade: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug plan.

McCain responded that he voted against Medicare Part D - its expected expenditures from 2009-18 are $727 billion - because it was not paid for. He voted against both rounds of tax cuts, but supported their extension in 2006.

"I will match my record as a fiscal conservative against anyone in the House and Senate, including the new members," McCain said. "I have fought both the Republican and Democratic leaders on spending. I will defend my record."

In other matters, McCain was asked about United Nations Agenda 21, a plan for sustainable development introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit. McCain was jeered by some in the audience when he asked the questioner to elaborate.

"It's a takeover of the United States," a man said. "The UN wants to take over our farms."

After the 75-minute town hall meeting concluded, one audience member repeatedly shouted, "Where's our fence?" - the only time on Monday that the topic of illegal immigration came up.

A Constitutional amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.

The way to amendment is, in my conception, shut. Let us consider this plain, easy way. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by the Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 1st and 4th clauses in the 9th section of the 1st article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Hence it appears that three fourths of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary. Let us consider the consequence of this. However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must tell my opinion — that the most unworthy characters may get into power, and prevent the introduction of amendments. Let us suppose — for the case is supposable, possible, and probable — that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two thirds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed! In such numerous bodies, there must necessarily be some designing, bad men. To suppose that so large a number as three fourths of the states will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, approaching to miraculous. It would indeed be miraculous that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some likeness to one another; for four of the smallest states, that do not collectively contain one tenth part of the population of the United States, may obstruct the most salutary and necessary amendments. Nay, in these four states, six tenths of the people may reject {50} these amendments; and suppose that amendments shall be opposed to amendments, which is highly probable, — is it possible that three fourths can ever agree to the same amendments? A bare majority in these four small states may hinder the adoption of amendments; so that we may fairly and justly conclude that one twentieth part of the American people may prevent the removal of the most grievous inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amendments. A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?
What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause: — that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive.
Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.