We the People?

The Tea Partys Hypocritical Defense of the Founding Fathers American Values
























Jos Munn
Mr. McCollough
Mr. Kearney
Period G
December 7, 2012
Word Count: 3763
President Obama has been called numerous names by opponents ranging from
socialist to foreign but the most notable title hes been given is absolutely (Bachmann)
anti-American by Michelle Bachmann, a Congresswoman from Minnesota who also
supports a group that hypocritically claims its roots in the Founding Fathers ideal
America the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a conservative movement that began in 2009 in
response to the economic crisis the United States was suffering also known as The Great
Recession. Important organizations within the Tea Party movement, such as the Tea Party
Patriots, define the movement as a spontaneous response by the American people to
fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government, misguided stimulus spending,
bailouts and takeovers of private industry (About Tea Party Patriots). The Tea Party has
advocated time and time again that they want to take America back, and they wish to make
it the country the Founding Fathers wished it to become. But that is, in fact, not true. The
Tea Partys doctrine directly contradicts what the Founding Fathers established as the
values of the United States in the areas of First Amendment rights, voter rights, and the
power of the federal government.
The Tea Party draws its roots from many Americans belief that the US government
overspends their tax dollars on programs such as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare
that enlarge the federal government to a point in which it intrudes a citizens everyday life.
Many peoples misunderstanding is that the Tea Party is a radical branch of the right-wing
Republican Party, but it is not. The Tea Party is a decentralized movement composed of
thousands of local organizations throughout the United States in which everyday citizens
(plumbers, nurses, janitors) opposed to the governments spending converge to put in place
officials who carry out their agenda, many of which happen to be Republicans.
Nevertheless, the Tea Party movement thinks the Republican Party stopped being the
party of fiscal conservatism when it became so obsessed with social conservatism
(Connolly), as Rick Sbeth states, the Republican Party, as one of the two mayor parties,
has deviated too far from is principles over the years, from that theyve sort of moved
into the region that would violate certain principles which are smaller government, free
enterprise, and constitutional government I think youll find that the Tea Party is more
like the traditional Republican Party (Sbeth). Therefore, the Tea Party movement and the
Republican Party are separate entities on the right of the political spectrum, which overlap
at the far right of the Republican Party and left of the Tea Party movement, resembling a
Venn diagram.
In order to discuss how the Tea Party contradicts the Founding Fathers, they
must, first and foremost, be identified, and their ideals described. Although some might say
that the Founding Fathers were all those present at the Second Continental Congress or
Constitutional Convention, or those that signed the Declaration of Independence, it would
be impossible to be able to compare all of their beliefs and ideas for America. So, for the
purpose of this paper, the Founding Fathers will be the seven most influential people
involved in the creation of the United States: George Washington (General of the
Continental Army, President of the Constitutional Convention, and first President of the
United States), John Adams (Attorney, first Vice-President of the United States, and the
nations second President), Thomas Jefferson (main author of the Declaration of
Independence, first Secretary of State, founder of the nations first political party, and its
third President), James Madison (main author of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, co-
author of the Federalist Papers, and fourth President of the United States), Alexander
Hamilton (member of the Constitutional Convention, co-author of the Federalist Papers,
and first Secretary of the Treasury), John Jay (co-author of the Federalist Papers, and first
Chief Justice of the United States), and Benjamin Franklin (member of both the Continental
Congress and the Constitutional Convention and co-author of the Declaration of
Independence). These revolutionary men gave heart and soul for their country and risked
their lives in order to create a free nation in which all men are created equal (Jefferson).
They believed in a nation in which every citizen had a voice, and they created a federal
government strong enough to keep the states subject to it, but weak enough to prevent it
from becoming a tyranny through an intricate system of checks and balances within its
three branches. They cherished the idea that the government would look out for all its
citizens and sought to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty of
ourselves and our Posterity (US Constitution), and broke away from an oppressive regime
to create the worlds first free colonial State and launch the experiment of a republic.
The Founding Fathers established freedom of the press and religion, opposing what
the Tea Party truly believes. But why exactly do they believe otherwise? The First
Amendment of the Constitution has long been regarded as the greatest gift the Founding
Fathers gave their citizens. Some of their own forefathers had come to the New World
escaping religious persecution in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, so the power to believe
in what you chose to believe was very important to them. Tea Party members are more
likely than American adults to attend religious services weekly (38 percent do so) and to
call themselves evangelical (39 percent). Sixty one percent are Protestant, and another 22
percent are Catholic, (Montopoli) making the Tea Party 83% evangelical/born-again
Christian and Roman Catholic. And because the Tea Party believes that the US was found
as a Judeo-Christian nation, and they make up fifteen percent of the electorate (the
Christian right), they certainly have power when it comes to policy creation within states.
Christine ODonnell, Tea Party Senate candidate from Delaware in 2010 and 2012, said in
a 2010 debate against the Democratic incumbent Chris Coons, where in the Constitution is
the separation of Church and State? (ODonnell and Coons) and when told by her
opponent that it was in the First Amendment, responding, The First Amendment does? So
youre telling me that the separation of Church and State is founded in the First
Amendment? (ODonnell and Coons), reflecting the religious fundamentalism within the
Tea Party that was absent in the Founding Fathers framing of the United States. Another
example, is another 2010 Tea Party-backed Senate candidate, this time, Ken Buck from
Colorado, who said that he disagrees strongly with concept of separation of Church and
State; it was not written into the Constitution, (Buck) at a forum for conservative Senate
candidates. His audience clapped and cheered after he said that, showing how the Tea Party
has managed to manipulate the Christian right into supporting their agenda by appealing
their fundamentalist approach to religion. Like Ken Buck who denounces President Obama
calling the White Houses Christmas tree a Holiday tree, instead (Buck) and receiving
support of many people like Sbeth who thinks that the freedom of display the Holy Family
and the Baby Jesus surrounding the Christmas pine. People like the American Civil
Liberties Union have come up and banned that (Sbeth) without really being able to
substantiate. But the Founding Fathers disagree with that, most notably Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, and John Adams. First and foremost, John Adams signed the Treaty of
Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of
Tripoli of Barbary, commonly called the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1797, which was ratified by
the Senate in order to make a formal agreement with the Barbary States in order to prevent
them from looting American ships in the Mediterranean. In Article XI, the Treaty states that
the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquility of Musselmen, (United States Congress, Senate), stating that America is a
secular country which respects all faiths and has nothing against the Muslim religion. This
secularism is opposed by Ken Buck, who said on July 12
th
, 2010 that the secularism
developing in this country is a very scary concept, (Buck) when, in fact, the United States
is a constitutionally secular nation. Then, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1801 that the First
Amendment was a wall of separation (Jefferson) between church and state. Jefferson also
co-authored the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1777 with James
Madison, which passed the Virginia Legislature in 1786, which secured that in the state of
Virginia:
no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body
or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that
all men shall be free to profess, and by argument, to maintain, their opinions in matter of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of
mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its
operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right (Virginia Statute for
Establishing Religious Freedom).
Therefore they supported religious freedom and separation of Church and State and
plainly stating that said freedom in a natural right (as opposed to a God-given right which
would imply a certain religion.) Freedom of the press is also under attack by the Tea Party.
Another Tea Party candidate for US Senate in 2010, Sharron Angle from Nevada, said on
an interview with FOX News Carl Cameron on August 2
nd
, 2010 that we want them [the
media] to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we
want it to be reported (Angle) clearly saying that she wished that the Tea Party could
manipulate what the media reported in order for them to shine The Tea Party in a positive
light for the public to see them like they wish to be seen, and not necessarily the whole
truth. The Founding Fathers also included freedom of the press in the Fist Amendment,
writing, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
(US Constitution). The Tea Partys Christian fundamentalism does not allow them to
explore the truth in what the Founding Fathers established; they are encapsulated in their
ignorance and preach it true, even though others disagree.
In their time, the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, allowed all white men over
the age of twenty one to vote, but through the elasticity of the document, managed to leave
the door open to future generations to include other demographics and break the race,
gender, and age barriers. The Framers included Article V in the Constitution, which stated
its amendment process. That, along with the Preamble which secures and guarantees that
the government of the United States shall establish Justice and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, (US Constitution), opened the door for the
expansion of voting rights; from vesting them to all races after the Civil War in
Amendment XV, to women in Amendment XIX, to voting for the Senators from your state
in Amendment XVII. But, due to Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, the Times,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations (US Constitution), and because citizens dont vote for the
President and Vice-President, but for electors from their state to cast their vote, the same
law applies in that case; the individual states regulate both the state and national elections.
And recently, thirty four states have started implementing voter-suppression laws that
disenfranchise voters and mainly targets minorities and students (demographics which tend
to vote Democratic).
Of these thirty four states, thirty three have legislatures controlled by conservatives,
and all of the bills have been introduced after the 2010 midterm elections, when Tea Party
members gained more than six hundred seats in state legislatures and assemblies
nationwide. Most of these legislations disenfranchise demographics such as students, urban
dwellers, and minorities, which regularly vote Democrat. Three of the seven photo ID bills
to have passedSouth Carolinas, Texas, and Tennesseesexpressly do not allow
students to use photo IDs issued by state educational institutions to vote, and Wisconsins
bill effectively excludes most student IDs as well. (Weiser and Norden) By targeting
students, conservative legislators make sure to prevent young people, arguably one of the
most progressive demographics (seventy percent of Americans 18-34 support gay marriage,
and sixty two percent of Americans 18-29 support the legalization of marijuana (Newport)),
from casting their votes, hence, letting more conservative groups of people make the
decisions. Drivers licenses, for example, are accepted in the seven states where photo ID
laws passed (Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin), therefore disenfranchising urban dwellers and senior citizens. Normally,
people in cities with good public transportation systems, do not need to drive, and prefer
not to do so due to the high cost of cars, gas, and city parking, but instead prefer to use
busses or subways. So, they never get a drivers license, and cannot use one as their
government issued photo ID. In the 2012 presidential election, more than sixty five percent
of urban voters, voted for President Obama, so by preventing them from voting, the Tea
Party has a bigger chance of getting a conservative candidate elected into office. Also,
many senior citizens stop driving after their eyesight or reflexes deteriorate. In the last
election, President Obama and Governor Romney split the senior (65+) vote fifty/fifty.
Minorities such as African Americans and Latinos are arguably the most affected
demographics by these voter-suppression laws. Some of these laws, like Floridas, for
instance, eliminate Sunday voting. State Senate leader, Phil Berger, stated that it is his
understanding that there are some folks who feel that Sundays should not be mixed
politics and religion, that its probably better to have a day that folks take a day off from
politics, (Weiser and Norden) which takes us back to our separation from Church and
State argument; if Sunday voting was eliminated because they chose not to mix politics and
religion, then shouldnt it have also been eliminated on Saturdays (the holy day for Jews)
and Fridays (the holy day for Muslims), as well? Ohio has eliminated in-person early
voting on Sundays entirely, Florida has eliminated it on the last Sunday before the election,
and North Carolina has introduced a bill which would eliminate it entirely. (Weiser and
Norden) Eliminating Sunday voting is unfair to African Americans, for example, because
it is common for Black voters to go to the polls in large groups on Sundays, after church,
and for some African-American churches to organize Souls to the Polls voting drives
For instance, in the 2008 general election in Florida, 33.2% of those who voted early on the
last Sunday before Election Day were black and 23.6% were Hispanic (Weiser and
Norden). Supporters of said laws say they will help with the voter fraud problem in
America, when a New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the
Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly
filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86
convictions (Lee). Yes, eighty six of the millions of voters who cast a ballot between 2002
and 2007 are all the proven cases of voter fraud in America. Mike Turzai, majority leader
of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recently praised the states legislative
accomplishments at a Republican State Committee meeting last month (Sept. 2012), voter
ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done, (Lee)
quotes like these demonstrate that the true essence of these laws is not the noble reason they
try to portray (prevent voter fraud). After the fact, the Pennsylvania voter-suppression law
was deemed unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court and Mitt Romney, did indeed,
lose the state of Pennsylvania. Newly elected legislators introduced about a quarter of
these bills (Weiser and Norden) in 2010, all of which were conservatives. And because the
Tea Party gained more than six hundred seats in state legislatures throughout the United
States, its not that difficult to realize that the Tea Party seeks to suppress voters that would
normally vote against their ultra-conservative agenda.
The Founding Fathers created the Constitution in the first place because the Articles
of Confederation (the previous law of the land) had a very weak central government
composed solely of a Congress without an army, power to levy taxes, regulate commerce,
or much power over the states. So, they decided that it was better to have every state under
a strong national government, instead of a confederation of basically autonomous entities.
Hence, the government of the United States has the right to be big, but the Tea Party argues
against this point, as well, while still claiming to be true to the wishes of the Founding
Fathers. The Tea Party preaches that the Founding Fathers sought to have a small national
government in the nation they found, but this couldnt be further away from the truth. The
first president, George Washington, for example, with the advice of his Secretary of the
Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, expanded the national government by creating the National
Bank in order to create revenue to pay off the debt owed by the Revolutionary War.
Although it was a point of controversy and heated debate in Congress, it passed and was
created, under the constitutional principle of it being necessary and proper (US
Consitution) in order to pay their debt. Even Thomas Jefferson, the strongest proponent of
small government within the Founding Fathers and the founder of the more conservative of
the first two parties, the Democratic-Republican Party, expanded the federal government
roles unimaginably by purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803, doubling
the area of the United States. Today, the Tea Party argues that the Affordable Care Act, or
Obamacare, as it has come to be called, passed into law in the 2010, was an
unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. But, in 2012, the conservative
Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, issued their 5-4 decision, stating that
Obamacare is, in fact, constitutional on grounds of it being a tax which the national
government has the right to levy under Article I of the Constitution, proving the Tea Party
wrong.
The Founding Fathers also fought for democracy in order to prevent taxation
without representation, so they cared about what citizens wanted. In todays America, for
the first time, most citizens approve of gay marriage (fifty three percent) and the
decriminalization of marijuana (fifty six percent) (Newport), but the Tea Party still opposes
it; beliefs held in their Christian fundamentalism, which also goes against the Founding
Fathers ideals. Furthermore, the Tea Party, for example, opposes same-sex marriage, but
doesnt preventing people to marry whomever they want, create a more invasive
government? If the Tea Party truly preaches smaller government, then they should
reconsider its opinions on social issues.
Supporters of the movement might say that the Tea Party is following the Founding
Fathers example; they led the Boston Tea Party against taxation without representation,
now they are leading a movement against government spending of their tax dollars. The
Founding Fathers opposed the fact that the British were taking advantage of them in order
to pay the debt they were in after the French & Indian War after 1763, when they began to
impose taxes on everything from tea to stamps. This taxation without representation in
Parliament is what led them to head to Boston Harbor and throwing British tea off the boats
into the Atlantic, action, which we now refer to as the Boston Tea Party, and later, fight and
win independence from Britain. The difference between the Founding Fathers and the Tea
Party movement is that the Founding Fathers did not lie and state that what they were doing
was in defense of the principles that founded their nation, in fact they were rebelling against
those same principles; what the Tea Party is doing, is exactly the opposite.
Tea Party members might also argue that the elastic or necessary and proper
clause in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution should not interfere with the states. In
Supreme Court cases regarding federalism and the boundaries between the state and
national governments since the inception of the republic, the Supreme Court has ruled in
favor of the national government. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), for instance, the
Supreme Court ruled that individual states could not tax the federal government, when
Maryland attempted to tax the National Bank. Also in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the
Supreme Court gave the federal government to regulate almost any kind of interstate
commerce. A history of Supreme Court decisions and laws have expanded the national
government to ways unimaginable in the late 1700s, but the Founding Fathers broad
interpretation of the necessary and proper clause set precedence for future generations.
The Tea Party has the right to believe whatever they want, but they cannot lie and
say that they want to live up what to the Constitution states and what the Founding Fathers
wished would become of their nation. Enlightened men have always says that you should
stand up to a government which acts wrong. Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
all used civil disobedience against their governments when oppressed, and won. Even
transcendentalist philosopher Henry David Thoreau, protested against government policies
he disproved of (slavery and war) by evading taxes, and going to jail for his crime, but he
didnt get out until somebody paid his dues. Therefore, the Tea Party movement must
publicly state that they have a different idea for what Americas direction should be than
that of the Founding Fathers, because it is, and stop hiding behind the metaphorical curtain
of lies, they currently use to manipulate the electorates minds. Furthermore, the citizenry
must open their eyes and see that the Tea Party has an idea about America that differs from
the Founding Fathers, if they agree with it, then they should join, but they should not be
led to believe that if they do not support the movement then they are un-American, like
Michelle Bachmann says President Obama is.



























Works Cited
"About Tea Party Patriots." Tea Party Patriots. Tea Party Patriots, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.teapartypatriots.org/about/.>.
Angle, Sharron. Interview by Carl Cameron. 2 Aug. 2010.
Bachmann, Michelle. Videoconference interview by Chris Matthews. 17 Oct. 2008.
Connolly, Katie. "What Exaclty Is the Tea Party?" BBC News. BBC News, 16 Sept. 2010.
Web. 10 Oct. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11317202>.
Ellis, Joseph. "The US Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs." Encyclopedia
Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 23 Feb. 2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-
beliefs/>.
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." The Characters of Freedom.
National Archive, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.
Lee, Suevon. "Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws."
ProPublica: Journalism in the Public Interest. ProPublica, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 24
Oct. 2012. <http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-
know-about-voter-id-laws>.
Montopoli, Brian. "Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe." CBS
News. CBS Interactive, Inc., 14 Apr. 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html>.
Newport, Frank. "For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage."
Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 20 May 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-
gay-marriage.aspx>.
- - -. "Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use." Gallup. Gallup,
Inc., 17 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-
marijuana.aspx>.
O'Donnell, Christine, and Chris Coons. Personal interview. 18 Oct. 2010.
Sbeth, Rick. Telephone interview. 16 Nov. 2012.
Terkel, Amanda. "GOP Candidate Ken Buck: 'I Disagree Strongly With The Concept Of
Separation Of Church And State' (VIDEO)." Huffington Post. HPMG News, 26
Oct. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/ken-
buck-separation-church-state_n_774023.html>.
United States. Cong. Senate. Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of
America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. 5th Cong., 1st. Yale Law
School Lillian Goldman Law Library. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
<http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp>.
"US Consitution." Cornell University Law School. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 9 Nov.
2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/>.
Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom. Va. Code Ann. Encyclopedia
Virginia. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/A_Bill_for_Establishing_Religious_Freedo
m_1779>.
Weiser, Wendy R., and Lawrence Norden. Voting Law Changes in 2012. Rept. New York
City: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2011.
Print.