Share SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Sep 20 2007
The Constitution-A Citizen's View PDF E-mail
Written by Hillard Welch   
September 20, 2007

This series is written by a private citizen with an abiding interest in U.S. history, particularly its founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.


When the Founding Fathers were creating a "new nation," they not only spoke about, but frequently wrote about, "limited government." They were obsessed with the idea that any national government should be, to paraphrase Jefferson, "bound down with the constraints of a written constitution."

Founders Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams all took this position. All were students of history with an extensive knowledge of European governments and mankind's struggle through the ages to achieve greater individual freedom than had been previously known.

Thomas Paine summed it up the best: "That government is best that governs least."

So, reflecting on that as background, the question must be asked: "Are we living up to their standards?"

Start with the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes "

Ignoring any questions that have been raised as to the validity of the ratification of this amendment, there is nothing in it that says a "graduated" income tax is permissible.

In fact, a reference to duties, imposts and excises elsewhere in the Constitution states that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. The question must then be, "is the graduated income tax, as it has been applied, constitutional?"

Turning to Article IV from the Bill of Rights, we find these words, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated "

Against this, we must place the "Patriot Act," signed into law on October 26, 2001, which gave sweeping search and surveillance powers to domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies. On the very face of it, this legislation would have to be declared unconstitutional.

Destined to expire in December 2005, Congress moved to reauthorize the act with only minor changes and it was signed into law on March 2 of last year.

The argument that such a capability is necessary under the current terrorist threat is without merit for any authorization of unbridled power certainly is not within the context of the Constitution. It is truly "unlimited government."

That law has been criticized for its weakening protection of civil liberties. Consider particularly the searches of home or business without the owner's or occupant's permission or knowledge. Can this be called constitutional?

The words that would support such a law do not exist in the Constitution. Yet Congress seemed willing to grant any and all such power without concern for the short and long term effect of such a law. History reminds us that such laws generally precede greater usurpation of power on the part of the incumbent leaders.

The ultimate result is some form of dictatorship. Have we too soon forgotten how Hitler came to power? Nazi Germany provides an example.

The 17th Amendment bears scrutiny. Originally, Senators were chosen by the legislature of their state (Art. 1, Sec. 3), thus owing their allegiance to their state. With the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators became popularly elected, the same as representatives.

This effectively destroyed the sovereignty of the individual states. No longer did we have two distinct and unique legislative bodies to serve as checks and balances. No longer did we have individual states represented in the Senate as such.

A state's sovereignty is not maintained by gaining more money from the federal trough. In fact, the state becomes more subservient to the will of the federal government which now threatens to withhold federal grants if the state does not comply with the bureaucrat's desires.

Art. I, Sec. 8 says, "The Congress shall have power to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The words "general welfare" have become a catchall for anything the politicians wanted to do.

Thanks to the Butler Case (1936), the Supreme Court rendered the opinion that this clause allowed Congress "to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes [and] is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

This decision may have effectively destroyed the concept of limited government. Foreign aid, corporate grants, bankruptcy bailouts, and more all become acceptable with such an interpretation of the "general welfare" clause.

How taking money from the citizens and then giving it to some foreign dictator can be called "general welfare" boggles the mind. If this were done by private citizens, it would be considered theft, punishable as a crime.

It is understood that the Supreme Court has ruled the government does not have the right to dictate to any parent what school their child attends, what subjects they study or what attendance record they have. Only parents are considered qualified to make such decisions. Yet, with no constitutional basis, we have a Department of Education that is doing just that!

Today, the federal government is seeking to mandate a mental health examination of every child regardless of whether the parent agrees or not. Have we arrived at the point where "unlimited" government can dictate every act? You make the decision.

The Constitution is silent with respect to the operation of the Supreme Court. (Art. III, Sec. 2) As a consequence, we now have judicial activists "interpreting" the Constitution according to their own desires. This makes the court a legislating body rather than a judicial one.

Irrespective of your own position, think about one of the most prominent decisions, Roe vs. Wade, since this case established a legal position.

Under the Constitution, does the federal government have any authority or jurisdiction over the subject of abortion?

To call it "general welfare" is incredulous. If the separation of powers are viewed, the case should have been remanded to the states wherein such authority resides.

Jefferson was vitally concerned about this, noting that judicial review could distort the original intent, create new laws and even unlawfully amend the Constitution.

Have we moved toward an unlimited government, one without the restraint of our original Constitution?

That's my question. What's your view?


Subscribe to E-mail Updates

Click HERE to subscribe to e-mail updates from barnstablepatriot.com.

Patriot Poll