Ignorant About the American Constitution?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 10, 2003 | Walter Williams

[luckydevi]

I'd like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.

The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans.

In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.

Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause." Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The Constitution's father, James Madison said:

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered.

[snopercod]

These constitutional threads spark little interest among the "general population" of FReepers, so I feel free to post a large "suitable for framing" .jpg without getting flamed.

These cartoons were published in Harper's Weekly in New York City on October 4, 1862:

[dixie sass]

If I remember correctly from Civics classes and American History, it is not the Supreme Court that makes law, but Congress.

Somewhere along the way we forgot that.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"general welfare" BUMPMARK

[Liberal Classic]

'General welfare' and 'regulate commerce' are our undoing.

[Spiff]

The comments by the esteemed Dr. Walter Williams fly in the face of alot of the manure you've been shoveling about your interpretation of the Constitution and the powers you believe that the Congress legitimately possesses.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

It sounds to me ,from your post ,you have been freeping around here lately.. you forgot anyone who wishes to discuss the Constitution is a troll, and is the "ugly face" of Conservatism.

[dixie sass]

Thank you for the ping.

[k2blader]

Walter E. Williams bump!

[dixie sass]

As far as I am aware, historically, there was no insurrection. Although the South and in particular South Carolina was the first to actually seceed from the Union, the New England states had discussed seceeding from the Union not many years prior to the south and for basically the same reasons.

[snopercod]

Worse yet, "general welfare" now includes the general welfare of the world, according to the Supreme Court.

[joanie-f]

Not up to responding to all of your excellent posts tonight (will do so soon), but just wanted to share this photo with you all. It's not at all related to this thread, but hit me hard when I first saw it today. Thought you might all appreciate it as well:

[KrisKrinkle]

It looks like the underlying premise of your reasoning is that the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish. The opposite of that is an underlying premise of my reasoning and I did not see anything in your reasoning to cause me to accept your premise over mine.

If my premise is correct, and the people have the Constitutionally retained right I stated and exercise that right, then seems to me that amounts to Constitutional authorization.

And this is the (probably unintended) consequence of an amendment to the Constitution. But just because consequences are unintended doesn't mean they don't exist.

Note that lower down in the Declaration of Independence it says that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, which relates to what I tried to lay out. Still further down are complaints about what the Government or the King did that the people did not want done, but there are also complaints about what the Government or the King did not do that the people did want done.

By the way, I don't very much like the implications of my reasoning, though that's irrelevant.

[Jeff Head]

It looks like the underlying premise of your reasoning is that the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish.

No, that is not the premise of my reasoning.

The people do have the right, and the people have already outlined at the Federal level, in law, how that right is to be exercised. That's what the US Constitution is all about.

If it is not done through the amendment process, it is illegal, by definition, and by the direction of the people themselves through the ratification process, meaning the consent of the people.

So, we have the right, and at the federal level we have already defined how that right is to be exercised.

Now, my other point was that if the federal officials themselves begin circumventing the process (which all three branches of government have been doing for decades), then ultimately, like with the revolution, the people can resort to their natural right as outlined in the DOI to throw off such usurpations.

IMHO, the premise you are setting forth is that the people have the power to usurp the ratified, legal amenement process through their federal legislators that they themselves (the people) have ratified and directed those legislators to use. That, unless I am reading this wrong, is the fault I find. It's like the people saying...do it this way (the legal, ratified amendment process) and then turning around and telling their legislators that it is okay to violate it and break their oath. That leads, by affirmation, to what we already have...them breaking their oaths and circumventing the constitution, thinking that "the people will approve". They are trying to call this democracy...when this Republic was never intended to be a pure democracy in the least.

That may be the defacto state...but it is wrong, illegal and unconstitutional altogether.

Jeff

[Protagoras]

Don't forget the Air Force. There's no amendment authorizing that either.

No amendment is needed for the armed forces. Amendements are for things not found in the body of the constitution.

[Protagoras]

In brief, while the Founders had no authorization to do things that would fall within the category of "bread and circuses", if the people have the reserved power to do those things, they have the right to have the Founders successors do those things on their behalf, and by doing so the people give the Founders successors authorization.

Nonsense. If they desire that, they have been provided the means, it's called constitutional amendment.

[Calvin Locke]

Look at who was eligible to vote at the time of the establishment of the Constitution.

Look at who is able to vote now.

Universal Sufferage doesn't work without safeguards on, oh heck, the USSC doesn't believe in safeguards, or the Constitution.

[ZULU]

Maybe we need to wipe the entire legal slate clean with respect to Constitutional law, and start again, on the right track - with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers as the ONLY doucments the nine idiots on the Supreme Court are permitted to employ, and only in the same sense the original framers intended.

[Looking for Diogenes]

No amendment is needed for the armed forces. Amendements are for things not found in the body of the constitution.

I see mention of the army and the navy, land and sea forces. I don't see any mention of the "armed forces" or any air forces. Can you give me the citation where you find in the Constitution the term "armed forces."

[Protagoras]

You are obtuse. Purposely or otherwise. End of discussion.

[Looking for Diogenes]

No more obtuse than those who seem to claim that because Social Security is not mentioned in the Constitution it is therefore unconstitutional. Many legitimate activities of government including Social Security and the Air Force, are not in the Constitution explicitly but are nonetheless constitutional.