Columnist Frank Pignanelli's shot at the Patrick Henry Caucus (May 31) exhibits a surprising lack of understanding on his part.
It is true that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution, but a deeper look at why and what the results of that opposition were, put alongside the objective of the Patrick Henry Caucus, tells quite a different story. Henry understood the need to have a stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation granted, but he felt strongly that the Constitution went too far and gave too much power to the federal government.
Henry was a firm believer in state sovereignty and wanted to ensure that states would not be steamrolled by the federal government. He also opposed the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. It was, in fact, his opposition that led to a bill of rights being drafted and added as the first 10 amendments. The Bill of Rights is probably the most famous part of the Constitution and has been an effective tool against government encroachment on our freedom.
The Patrick Henry Caucus is perfectly named because it seeks to restore meaning to the 10th Amendment. The goal of the caucus — state sovereignty — was precisely Henry's goal when the Constitution was initially ratified.
Brad Daw
Orem