Meet the Candidates: Mike Lee

I first met Mike Lee back in December, before he officially entered the race. I was excited to here about his campaign, and I was looking forward to meeting him. From everything I was hearing, Mike Lee was going to be my candidate.

Of all the candidates running for the Senate position, I believe that Lee has the best understanding of the constitution. Lee has studied the constitution for years, and recently served with Justice Alito. Serving with a Justice of the Supreme Court can only help in your understanding of the constitution.

In my first meeting with Lee, I learned a lot about the Constitution and had a greater appreciation for Section VIII. I was so inspired that I have reread Section VIII and other parts of the constitution.

However, I wasn’t sold on Lee. There was something missing there, and I couldn’t quite pin it down. So, I did some more research. And what I found I liked.

Lee is not opposed to nuclear energy and the storage of nuclear waste in Utah. And believe it or not, I agree with this stance. I think that it is a very small risk, for the benefit that it would bring to the state.

However, I still couldn’t get behind Lee. And I think that I have finally narrowed it down.

Perhaps the biggest problem that I have with Lee is that while he claims to be a constitutional candidate. He also has proposed at least two different things in his platform that would require amending the constitution. They are term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

While I am not opposed to amending the constitution. I feel that term limits are a limit of the voice of the people more than they are a limit on congress. And I am opposed to them. And when it comes to the balanced budget, it is my understanding that it was one of the issues that the founding fathers debated in the convention, and they decided not to include it. I believe we should yield to their wisdom on this.

On a more personal note, Lee is a lawyer. I haven’t been impress with either of the lawyer senators we have in office right now. (Okay, my mistake. I guess that Bennett has been in Washington so long, he sounds like a lawyer. Either way, I would still like a businessperson over a lawyer.) When you look at the profession of lawyers, it is their job to convince you of something. And I don’t need convincing of my opinion. I would rather have a business person representing me. This isn’t a big issue for me, but it is an issue for me.

I am not against Lee. I think that he makes a great candidate. And I would rather Lee over Bennett with out hesitation. However, I am not convinced that he is the best candidate for the job. Just Like I am not convinced about any of the other three.

Lee has added a lot to the discussion about this Senate race, and I like that he is running. I just have been convinced that he is the man for me. This is a truly exciting race, and I am glad to be a part of it.

Possibly Related Posts:

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

9 comments to Meet the Candidates: Mike Lee

  • Bennett is not a lawyer. Being a lawyer is not inherently either a benefit or a hinderance to being a good senator. Like you I have struggled with the idea of a term limits amendment in the past but I have become convinced, even before Mike Lee joined the race, that such an amendment is necessary and not truly limiting to our liberty. A full explanation would be too much for a comment but email me if you want more detail. As for a balanced budget amendment—there was a reason that the founders rejected the idea but times have changed. For ont thing, congress no longer exercises any self-restraint. I don’t see that changing so we must find some fiscal restraint. Amendments must always be approached thoughtfully but both of the ones Mike is proposing pass the test.

    You may not be convinced yet but if you keep studying I trust that you will also conclude that Mike Lee is the candidate we need to elect now.

  • Propilot

    When the Founding Generation “left out” the requirement to balance the national budget, they assumed that those in charge of the budget were prudent, honest and careful stewards of the national treasure. Over the years, congress has ignored the basic principles of the rule of law, and have begun spending billions, putting us in debt in the trillions, and growing every second. Unless there is some restraint, under the law, to restrict this reckless spending, it will never stop, because those spending the money are funding their own future as professional politicians (which leads me to term limits). A combination of unbridled spending and self-serving earmarks and pork barrel dealing leads to the advent of the career politician. We’ve seen the results. The only way to cure this terrible disease is to limit the money, and limit the term. George Washington opposed the career politician. So do I.
    Let Mike Lee explain to you the basic principles here. When you’ve heard him, you will be certain that he’s right on this.

  • Jon

    I agree largely with both of the above posts.

    We currently have one lawyer senator and one businessman senator. I don’t really like either bit I prefer the lawyer (hatch) over the businessman(Bennett) but that has zero to do with withers profession. As stated the profession does not make them good or bad, it’s the person.

    On balanced budget i 100% agree we need it. I am not turned off by ideas that would need to amend the constitution of they are good, sound principles. That is why we have the amendment process.

    I have talked with, listened to, read and heard many debates of all the Senate Challengers. I think all three you have mentioned would do the job better then our current senator.

    But I am totally convinced that Mike Lee is THE choice. He is the best.
    Utah needs to lead the way on electing true conservatives, who will honor and follow the constitution unwaveringly. We need Mike Lee.

  • Jon

    Sorry for typos above, on my iPhone.

  • I had similar thoughts as you, Travis. I’m not excited about term limits either but I also know that it is nearly impossible to find a candidate I agree with 100%. I asked Lee about his stance on term limits and his reasoning for supporting it is that it is the only way he can see to get rid of the seniority system. If someone can propose to him a better idea he would support that instead. The seniority system is a slap in the face to the ability of the people to choose representation for themselves because they get punished for holding their representatives accountable by voluntarily limiting terms.

    As for the lawyer thing goes, I don’t really think that is a valid argument. We are voting for an individual, not an occupation. The problem we have with most lawyers in Washington, is they perpetuate the fallacy that the Supreme court is the supreme decider of what is Constitutional. We all know that lawyers and judges have interpreted that the Constitution says congress can do pretty much whatever it wants. However, Mike Lee, the lawyer, knows the system and abhors it. He won’t do what the other lawyers are doing, he will fight the other lawyers.

    So in my opinion, Mike Lee’s being a lawyer and a strict “Original Intent” Constitutionalist is actually a strength. Let’s fight fire with fire!

    I am convinced that he is the guy we need because Lee’s focus IS the Constitution. He doesn’t just mention it on occasion like some other candidates. He stands by it, he upholds it, and he defends it. He has my vote and I will do everything in my power to make sure he gets elected!

  • Marcus

    A balanced budget amendment is needed. We have been spending too much money without the realization that we cannot pay for these things. Without a balanced budget amendment, it passes our current fiscal deficiencies to future generations. However, I do believe that real culprit or the elephant in the room is the Federal Reserve. As long as we have an institution that is the “end of all lenders” to the fiscal irresponsibility’s of Republican and Democratic office holders, none, I mean NONE, of our lame politicians will ever be beholden to a federal budget restraints.

  • Jeremy

    I agree with the posters that we need a balanaced budget amendment of some kind. We have somehow gotten the idea that we get things without ever paying for them, and that just isn’t reality. Since the leaders in Washington refuse to pay attention to reality (to the detriment of future generations) it seems we must try to force their hand. An amendment to the Constitution is really the only way to do that.

    As for term limits, I can take that amendment or leave it. I don’t think it’s really necessary, but I certainly don’t think it could hurt anything. It would probably have some positive benefits by forcing representatives to worry less about building their future power base.

    In any case, I think that Mike Lee is on the right track, and while I am not a fan of lawyers as a class, I AM a fan of this one.

  • I must admit… the recommendations to amend the Constitution are the ones that I’m most cautious about with Mike Lee. But, like Michelle, I don’t expect to find a candidate I agree with 100% of the time. For that matter, I’m not sure I agree with myself 100% of the time! Still, if we were to amend the Constitution, those are two ways that wouldn’t give me a lot of heartburn, especially if they were successful in reining in the bloated and overreaching federal government.

    For me, it came down to a gut check of who, deep in their core, would both take the Constitutional approach to every issue, and who has the skills and ability to lead others to do the same. My gut said “Mike Lee.”

  • I’m against amending the Constitution regarding term limits and a balanced budget. I think both problems are best solved by an involved and informed electorate. Americans truly get the government they deserve, and it makes me sad that we have to consider adding amendments to enforce what used to be common sense.

Leave a Reply