Posted on 12/10/2003 11:22:04 PM PST by 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.
BINGO!
PS when I read the title, I automatically thought of todays Supreme Court
I think the question may come down to whether the federal government is intruding on what would normally be a state matter. If it is not, then perhaps it doesn't need specific authorization in order to do it. I know that's bordering on heretical, but I don't know any other way around the issue. I'm not quite prepared to say that the U.S. is constitutionally prohibited from peacefully enlarging its territory when the opportunity presents itself.
See, also, Constitutional Overview.
William Flax
William Flax
Well, it took over 200 years to get to where we are now. Of course, now that politicians know how its done, " Vote for me, and I'll give you want, Constitution be damned", and with a large part of the populace buying into that, we'll be right back where we are now in 2 election cycles after "wiping the slate clean".
And yes, every Social Security tax, Medicare tax theft, federal drug law, and gun restriction are as equally un-Constitutional. Your attempts at justification are exemplary proof of the dangers of "mission creep" and incrementalism.
And then "the Rules" (note: not laws), which the fedgov has become most exceptional at doing with great efficiency.
Well, you can't have piracy amongst your Navy and you have to have some kind of chain of command, for example, and there is a necessary prohibition against rape and pillage for any risen Army, for example. Perfectly understandable. The Navy's Rules would be "applicable at all times" since it was supposed to be existent at all times. The Army's Rules would have to be promulgated when the call went forth to raise the Army. Those "Rules" could be drug out of the lower desk drawer, from the last time they were used, dusted off and updated, if necessary. (search UCMJ)
Any clearer? The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized.
I am well-aware of that aspect of the history of the U.S. military. The fact that the Air Force was once operated by the Army does not magically make it constitutional. The Department of Veterans Affairs operates hospitals and gives other services. If Congress decided to extend those same services to all citizens would that be constitutional just because it had originally been under a different department? Would Social Security have been OK if had originally only been available to soldiers and sailors?
Your attempts at justification are exemplary proof of the dangers of "mission creep" and incrementalism.
Wasn't the creation of the Air Force, never mentioned in the Constitution, a prime example of "mission creep" and "Incrementalism?"
That is apparent both from reading the Constitution itself and from reading the minutes of the convention and the Federal Papers. However it seems like most so-called strict constructionists are also pro-military. The strong, implicit ban on standing armies is a fact gets left out when the discussion turns to violations of the Constitution.
There is no historical evidence to support the modern interpretations of those words. Enemies of the Constitution were our undoing.
The point is that an absolutely strict interpretation of the Constitution isn't practical. It is too hard to amend this constitution. We need an Air Force and we need Social Security. Do we need amendments to authorize them? I hope not.
Funny that I chose the name "Ammender" when I can't even spell "Amender".
I must agree that I see that the Constitution is hailed vigorously at the same time as it is trampled. This is most likely occurring because people just don't know what the Constitution says. To tell you the truth, I am pretty sure that the Constitution makes it clear that federal laws which were made in agreement with the Constitution are on equal footing with subsequent constitutional amendments with which they disagree (the other option from the given wording is that the amendment makes it so that the federal law was never legal in the first place- which is absurd and opens up way too many problems). Federal laws and the Constitution are both "the supreme Law of the Land." (IV.4) There is no statement anywhere setting the Constitution above US laws. Maybe you could say that such a concept was inherently included in the definition of the word "constitution", but I don't know. To follow that argument, it does not say "the supremer LAWS of the land". The Constitution, US laws, and treaties form the supreme law, so I guess any given law might not be considered supreme in itself. But this ignores the fact that it would still be included regardless of the definition of "constitution" and whether or not it itself is supreme, because that law was "MADE in pursuance" (IV.4, capitals added) of the Constitution regardless of later changes to the constitution.
No matter what the writers intended with the words "provide for the... general welfare" (I.8), what they actually wrote was that Congress had authority to raise funds for this purpose, not that Congress had the authority to make laws or this purpose. If you keep reading in this section, it spells out exactly which kinds of laws Congress could make. This line about the "general welfare" does not provide at all for any laws other than those for collecting federal funding.
My personal political opinion is that a majority of the people in the US now think of themselves more as "Americans" than as Oregonians or Pennsylvanians (although there are definitely some places where this is not the case, mostly in the southeast and south central). Contrasting this with the ideals of 1787 and 1788 (and later for Rhode Island, North Carolina, Texas, and maybe even Utah), we see how much this country's view of itself has changed. By July of 1788, 11 individual countries had decided to relinquish their individual sovereignty in order to form one continental nation. Obviously, the people of the nation of Maryland (or any other state) were not very keen on losing that identity and all of their local power to a government led mostly by those from other nations (non-Marylanders), so the Constitution that was developed was extremely state-heavy. They had just fought for their independence. They did not want to loose it that quickly. However, today most of us are not as concerned with our New Mexican fealty as with that to the United States. With this in mind, I think it is reasonable to amend the constitution to reflect that shift. I think that it is possible that the US Congress should be given authority to govern on all matters of national importance (such as the illegalization of cocaine, etc.), with certain areas of governance secured to states. I also think that the federal constitution should be more specific about what states must do (rather than simply guaranteeing each a "Republican Form of Government". I think that the manner of electing representatives within states needs to be more clear. They are national representatives of the people of the United States, and yet they are treated like they are representatives of the states. It needs to be written that each representative must have a particular geographic region by the people of which he/she is elected and each region must be of equal population (approximately) and of limited demographic and geographic conditions (urban, rural, etc) and area. Every area must also be represented and no area may be without representation. It is okay (probably best) to have the "Representatives apportioned among the States according to their respective numbers" (Amendment XIV, Sec. 2) (see also Art. 1, Sec. 2, third paragraph), but the representatives must be apportioned within the states according to population as I stated. Otherwise, the entire state could vote on every representative (what would be the point of having so many?), or worse, state legislatures could allow constituencies of unequal sizes to elect representatives. In theory, a single person could choose all but one of the representatives (because the rest of the people who meet the "Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature must be included in the vote) from that state. The state legislatures should probably be allowed to divide the state into the constituent districts with the above parameters (And maybe some more I haven't thought of) with Congress maintaining the right to veto any unsatisfactory state divisions (which is currently within their rights).
As concerning the Air Force, it is true that the Constitution mentions only armies, the navy and the militia. However, I am not certain that the argument that the air force is an army is unfounded. I doubt that we could get away with including it with the navy (since that has a much more specific meaning). Politically, I think that the air force should be a national matter. I think military efforts in general would be more efficient but mostly more effective at the national level. I also think that military consolidation and a demilitarized interior were some of the main reasons for the original formation of this nation, and I think that that was genius foresight (I am so glad we did not end up divided like Europe). I could say more about that, but I am getting tired of writing at the moment.
I have so much to say about the Constitution, so I will stop for now. Hopefully someday you will all live in the exact same state as I and will all vote for Randy Cragun (me) for US representative and Senator (unlike other candidates, I actually have separate reasons for wanting each position, rather than just viewing the Senate as the Continuation of a political career that had the House of Reps as a stepping stone). I want to be a representative to work on some fiscal policies (among a few other considerations) and a Senator to change to Constitution) before becoming a Supreme Court Justice to make sure the government actually follows the Constitution for once. Reaching these goals might be difficult, since people don't seem to like the idea of enforcing the Constitution. So, look for me.
By the way, I am working on the wordings for amendments I think are needed (as well as a pet project of just rewriting the whole thing), and I will hopefully be making these online sometime soon. I will let you know.
Randy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.