More on – Is it constitutional?

Have you ever stopped to think about the monies that the federal government “gives” to the states and municipalities?  Where does the federal government get the money in the first place?  And, finally, have you ever thought about the fact that federal government monies are disbursed with restrictions attached?

Put that all together, and you realize that it was your money the federal government took in the first place through taxes, fees and other means and which they are now “giving back” to you in the form of a subsidy or some other euphemistic term to conceal the real purpose.  In short, all such government monies are disbursed with directions to the recipient as to how they should be employed.  Yet, it was your money to begin with.  And now, they are “giving” back some portion of it with rules on how to spend it, having taken a cut along the way.

The federal government is “bribing you with your own money” to do what they, the politicians want.  And, there is no clause or section of the Constitution or its Amendments that authorizes such action on the part of the federal government.  Coercing the states to do the politicians’ bidding was fortified by the idea, “if you don’t [do as we request], we will.”  That is simply semantic legerdemain!

In fact, truth be known, it is a direct violation of the federal concept of government.  The federal government has, according to the Constitution, certain defined limits of activity and involvement.  All else is left to the states, each of which was considered in the beginning to be sovereign in its own right.  While a state’s areas of involvement and governance were not defined, they must not encroach on those few which were specifically relegated to the federal government.

Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) allegedly commented, “if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit an action, then I can do it”.  (See IXth and Xth Amendements which reserve to the states and/or the people all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.) This on the very face of it is an absolute attempt to avoid the restraints enacted by the Founding Fathers in establishing the Constitution.  Inserting words that do not exist does not justify the action contingent thereon.  Even before Theodore Roosevelt “bent” or “distorted” the original meaning, we encountered such a situation with Thomas Jefferson and the excerpt from his letter concerning the “wall of separation” between church and state.  Neither of these attempts at “stretching” the Constitution can be justified when the actual wording of the document is considered.

One need only remember that the Founding Fathers did not create a document to favor any individual, group, caste or association.  Whether you agree or disagree, you must accept the fact that they dealt as much as possible with what would be considered “basic principles” in much the same way that “gravity” is a basic principle.  That is why they sought to limit the federal government to specific, defined areas of responsibility and accountability.  Each of the three branches was expected to abide by such restrictions or directions as the Constitution delineated.  No more, no less!

Ever since the beginning of the 20^th century we have witnessed a progressive onslaught to undermine and change the meaning, purpose and activities of the federal government.  Such distortions have transformed us into a country in which the people are servants of the government, not the government the servant of the people.

And that is why it is even more important today to always ask your government officials, “is it Constitutional”?

Think about it.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?   

Reach me at constitutionviews@ gmail.com  ©Copyright 2012.  Hillard W. Welch

Always ask the question . . .

The Constitution

A citizen’s view

Always ask the question . . .

When the Founding Fathers created the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution of the United States, they had progressed through innumerable discussions, arguments, proposals and more. They finally settled on the wording for both documents as we have them today.

While many have been critical of the documents from the moment they were signed, the fact remains that both have withstood the test of time.  No other country, bar none, can make such a claim for their governing documents!

Undoubtedly the question, “why” was a common rejoinder to a delegate’s proposal when another  neither understood or appreciated the reason for it.  The result?  A concise, refined document.

Perhaps most important in all this is that the delegates were not seeking personal aggrandizement or power.  They put their talents to defining a document, The Constitution, that would protect the minority from the majority (thus the fact that “democracy” is never mentioned in either document) and that the laws which would flow from the document would be fair and equitable for each and every citizen.

Two outstanding blemishes in their approach were subsequently resolved.  One, unfortunately, by the bloodiest civil war in which the nation has ever been involved.  The other in confirming a woman’s right to equal standing with men.

Once completed and ratified by the individual states, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land.  All subsequent laws as proposed by Congress and signed by the President were to be consistent with the basic principles and provisions of that document.

Which brings us to the point of our sub-heading, “Always ask the question . . .”

That question: “is what is being proposed constitutional?”  If it is not, or is found wanting in any respect making it unconstitutional, it should not be passed or signed into law, no matter how many legislators promoted it.  It is not a question of personal preference.  It is about abiding by the “ground rules” for the operation of our government.  Once that restriction is breeched, there is no end to the usurpation of power and the corruption that can and will result.

To illustrate the point, let’s examine a specific piece of legislation and apply the constraints of the constitution to it.

Foreign Aid.  The US currently gives money each year to some 150 different countries around the globe.  Many, if not all, are antagonistic toward the US.  Despite accepting the funds and with few exceptions, they consistently vote against the US and its position at UN conferences.

Is it constitutional?  A thorough search of the document does not reveal any authorization for such disbursement of tax payer funds.  It would be an enormous stretch to say that the “general welfare” clause authorizes it.  The fact that so many recipients vote against the US position when the opportunity presents itself, is proof enough that it is not in our “general welfare”.

If we review only the past few years, the situation becomes even worse as the US has become a debtor nation without sufficient funds to balance an operating budget.  Thus, the US now literally borrows the money to support Foreign Aid.  In other words, the US now borrows money on which it pays interest to the creditor (probably China) in order to give it away to a collection of countries opposed to our standards, culture and outlook.

Even a present day high school student will acknowledge that this makes no sense at all.

Thus, the question remains: “is it (foreign aid) constitutional”?  The answer is obviously “no” and should therefore be stopped and defunded as rapidly as possible.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  © 2012 Hillard W. Welch

Our rights come from . . . ?

If you believe as our Founding Fathers did, then you know that you are “endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Declaration of Independence).

If you believe as those who seek more government, then you believe government grants you whatever rights you have.  To paraphrase Jefferson, “whatever government grants, it can also take away!” 

A personal question you might ask: do I want to be free and independent, relying mostly on myself and working for what I want, or do I want to be taken care of all my life?  Not quite as simple as it sounds.  Let’s examine some details and then you can decide.

In one case you are master of yourself, your soul and your life.  In the other, someone else, someone outside of you and probably someone working in a government office, determines all aspects of your life.  Though it goes by many names, it is generally considered some form of socialism.

The distinction we seek is the dramatic difference between two fundamental approaches to life in general and governments in particular.  One is based on freedom, the other on servitude.  While many people living in a socialist state do not necessarily think of themselves as in a condition of servitude, they are probably ignoring the amount of control their government is exercising over even their daily activities. 

The Founding Fathers fought a revolution to establish freedom of the individual as the basis for creating a new nation.  When writing the Constitution, their words restrict the government to a defined set of powers or activities.  Government encroachment on an individual’s freedom would stifle growth and productivity.  Their knowledge of history and other governments told them that individuals develop their maximum potential when left free to do so.  They recognized that the fall of Rome came about when the nation ceased to be under a rule of law and became a “bread and circus” environment in which the mob of people were dependent on the government for their subsistence.  Society broke down and the empire disintegrated.

If the government controls most of the activity, with half the population dependent on the government, then those who voted for it are receiving what they wanted.  The question is whether they consider themselves genuinely better off.  The lure of “something for nothing” ensnares many and they will continue to pursue it until as Margaret Thatcher explained, “the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

It was Winston Churchill who said, “the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

The United States by virtue of its independence and prosperity achieved by the sweat and effort of its citizens has been the most benevolent country in the history of the world.  It has provided more assistance to more people during its history than any other country.  Is it a part of the culture?  Was it taught in our early schools?  Did our forefathers (parents) instill such generosity in their progeny? Perhaps a combination has been the cause.

It would be difficult to name any country that has embraced socialism or government dominance of the country’s economy that has equaled or even come close to providing such assistance.  And, to top it off, the US has done it without expecting something in return.  Perhaps that is because the average American believes the words of the Declaration, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

We return to the question with which we began: do you prefer a government so powerful that it can take care of your every want or do you prefer one with only limited, well-defined powers designed to ensure your rights (from your Creator) so that you can grow on your own?

The choice is yours.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©2012 Hillard W. Welch

The Three–Legged Stool

The US government has often been compared to a three-legged stool with each leg representing one of  the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.

Following that analogy, if any one leg becomes longer or shorter than the other two, the stool becomes unstable and unless “righted” will ultimately topple over in the direction of the shorter leg or opposite the direction of the longest leg.

Now consider what that could mean in terms of the US government.

If the executive branch usurps powers that belong exclusively to either the legislative or the judicial branches, the result would be a dictatorial approach rather than a defined executive one as detailed in the Constitution.

Similarly, if the judicial branch begins interpreting rather than applying the constitution to a law passed by the legislature and signed by the president, the judiciary has usurped the law making function that is solely the prerogative of the legislature.

Following our discussion further, if Congress should fail to enact the laws necessary for the proper functioning of the government, the legislature would have abdicated its responsibilities. 
As an example, let’s assume that the House, where all money bills must originate, does not include in their proposed budget bill a particular department.  The president would have the authority to veto the bill, returning it to the House with his comments and reasons for the veto.  The House and Senate could then override the veto if they both can get the required 2/3rds vote.  Thus, this power of Congress can serve as a check and balance against the expansion of the executive functions in areas

considered questionable under the constitution.

Some examples of transgressions by each of the “legs” may prove helpful in understanding the responsibilities of each in affecting the “checks and balances” so ardently pursued by the Founders.

In the case of the judiciary, “making law” is not within their assigned power!  When they cross the line as they did in Kelo vs. New London (private property taken without due respect for the Constitutional requirements), Congress had the power and duty to step in and overrule the Supreme Court.  They could point out that the court had misinterpreted and intentionally ignored the restrictions which would govern in such a case.  Cf. Amendment V.  However, they let it ride and did not exert their powers.

Congress can be brought up short every time a law is enacted that subsequently is declared unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court acts as a restraining body by nullifying the unconstitutional law.

In the case of the president, Executive Orders that don’t pertain to executing the properly enacted laws of the country and Executive Orders that “appropriate” more powers to the president than are authorized are examples of such transgression.  The delegation by Congress of “war powers” and subsequent Executive Orders to send American troops to do the UN’s bidding fly in the face of the approved powers of the President.  Congress cannot delegate powers assigned exclusively to it.  Thus, Congress should move against the president when he acts improperly and without sound Constitutional authority.  Unfortunately, the Constitution has been both ignored and distorted to the point where it doesn’t appear that Congress is paying any attention and simply lets the president do whatever he wants.  Hardly an example of sound government representing the people or the law.

The actions described are evidence that the oath of office, taken by the chief executive officer, our elected representatives, senators and judicial appointees upon their respective election or appointment, is either completely forgotten or deliberately subverted.  In any case, it does not speak well for the intellectual honesty of those so involved.  The end result, no matter how laudable, is never a justification of the means. Governments become tyrannical by following such practices.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©2012  Hillard W. Welch   

Words with Meanings

Let’s quote a few from the Declaration of Independence to begin this essay.

“ . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Please note the words, “Governments are instituted among men”.   By whom?

That question is answered by the following clause, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Fairly clear, wouldn’t you say?

Governments are created (instituted) by men and receive their powers from the consent of those intended to be governed by whatever compact is negotiated.   All governments are man made.  They are not natural.  As a result, they must be judged in relation to natural law or existence.

Nothing is said about God granting a government to “certain individuals or groups”.  Nor is any other entity indicated as having the power or right to “institute a government” among men.  Only those who comprise the citizenry of whatever the “union” is can grant the powers to a central authority to govern their actions. More importantly, as noted in that same document, a government was instituted “to secure those rights” which were described as unalienable.

Therefore, if we pursue a logical explanation of government, no group or group of individuals has a right to dictate to the rest of the citizens, who have agreed to the compact, or to perform any functions, services or extract any tributes other than those prescribed by the compact itself.  The government was strictly limited to the terms of the compact.

The Founders never envisaged a government of career politicians or a ruling elite.  They expected citizens elected to or appointed to a government position to serve relatively short terms ( 2 years for Representatives and  6 for Senators) and then return to civilian life and gainful employment of whatever form. 

Man is borne free!  Slavery, in any form, is always an imposed condition, not a natural one, and is most often external in terms of source.  It is extremely doubtful that any individual would willingly submit themselves to a slave status.  Yet, that appears to be what can happen when the citizens, knowingly or unknowingly vote powers above, beyond or outside those originally established in the compact by which the union was created.  By incremental steps, the government becomes all powerful and the citizens become subjects.  History keeps showing us what happens when this occurs and the plight of the citizens residing in such a state.  As Jefferson said early on, “a government powerful enough to give a citizen everything he wants is powerful enough to take everything he has!”

Regardless of how a government comes into being, there is a basic truism, “governments have nothing of their own.  They must first take whatever it is from the citizens (ne subjects!).”  This seems to be forgotten too often in today’s politically correct onslaught as the elected officials continue to spend and spend, tax and tax, elect and elect, exempting themselves from the more onerous conditions of any legislation they pass.

The Founding Fathers sought in every way possible to “preserve, protect and defend” the individual rights of the citizens they represented.  They consequently created a Constitution to restrain and restrict the federal government to only those basic powers considered necessary and appropriate.  Limited government?  Absolutely!  Because the government was founded by the citizens, it must be responsive to them, not responsible for them!

That’s my view.  What’s yours.  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com Hillard W. Welch

©Copyright 2012

Why all the fuss?

Almost on a daily basis you can find an article or speech by someone seeking to eliminate the cherished 2^nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  Whenever such items appear it is a foregone conclusion that no valid statistics are presented that would support the repeated desire to control gun ownership by private citizens.

The words of the Constitution if read as originally written are not difficult to understand.  However, the misinterpretations are legion.  Most often the claim is made that guns should only be available to a state’s militia.  While the militia may have been considered a “first line of defense” during colonial times, that is a misunderstanding of the actual nature of a militia.

Historically, a militia is a group of citizens assembled, either hastily or previously planned due to an impending emergency, for the purposes of defending the homes, property and lives of the citizens.  It was never considered and thought to be a “standing army”.  In fact, the colonials had an inherent distrust of a standing army, having witnessed the problems encountered with the British soldiers stationed and quartered among them.

Any review of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reveals the primary concern with protecting the understood rights of the individual and an absolute minimum of government interference.  Both the 2^nd and 4^th Amendments establish this position.  The 2^nd by acknowledging the “right to keep and bear arms” and the 4^th  the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . . etc.”

We will not argue the point that today is different than colonial times but the potential for harm and commission of a crime remain pretty much the same.  The need to be able to protect one’s self and/or property, family or others still exists, albeit the means and/or methods of so doing have changed.

Would anyone seriously contend that the average law abiding citizen purchases a weapon for the express purpose of committing mayhem or any crime?  That goes beyond reason and logic.

Yet, there are those who believe crime can be prevented by making the average citizen incapable of defending themselves, their family or their property.  That, on the face of it, would leave the criminal (defined as one who does not abide by or adhere to the law) free to acquire and use whatever means would be considered effective in either subduing the person from whom the criminal wishes to take property or life.  It’s a little late when such a situation arises to call 911!  And, there is no excuse for blaming the police under such circumstances since they can only react when they become aware of such a situation.  No police force, regardless of how well trained and/or armed is capable of anticipating events or the actions of a criminal.

It appears that the importance of the individual citizen is often ignored or swept aside in the political and legislative environment as laws are written to restrict or control the means of self-defense.

History repeatedly reports on the ultimate subjugation of the citizens of a country who have had their weapons of self-defense confiscated.  The Founding Fathers must have anticipated such a possibility when they included the 2^nd Amendment.

The right of self-defense is not something granted by government.  It comes with you as a natural right at the time of birth.  It is an unalienable right and should be guaranteed and protected by government.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch

Principles?

By definition, a principle is “a fundamental or general truth upon which others are founded” or “a natural law by which something operates.”

Using those definitions, it is of no minor significance that the Founding Fathers believed they were dealing in “principles” when they created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Principles are important because they provide a solid and stable foundation.  They can be relied upon to be the same today as they were yesterday and will be the same tomorrow!

At the time of the founding of the United States, such stability was an important consideration.  The colonies had survived the Revolutionary War and had struggled through the era of the Articles of Confederation.  Throughout there had been a good deal of turmoil and conflict despite having pulled together when fighting the British.  Inflation was rampant as a consequence of the colonies issuing paper (printed) money to attempt to finance the war’s cost.

Perhaps the concept and impact of a principle can best be appreciated if one reflects on the fact that “gravity” is a natural principle.  It makes no difference what man or beast attempts, gravity remains in force.  Oh, yes, man has been able to “get beyond the reach of gravity” to send a man to the moon, but that does not negate the fact that gravity remains as an operating principle.

In their efforts to establish a sound government, the Founding Fathers worked diligently to put in place a number of basic points which they believed would serve as the foundation for the present and future.  This included such “principles” as “freedom of speech” which is not license to slander or defame anyone.  Add to that the principle of “freedom of worship”.  Nothing in that principle prohibits the display of religious symbols whether in public buildings or private homes.  Nor does it prohibit the teaching of religious subjects or the study of theology; quite the contrary, when the freedom of speech and worship are combined.

Another principle was “freedom of the press”.  Again, the printed word should not be slanderous nor defamatory.  To protect against such distortions by anyone, Congress passed laws specifically addressing such destructive behavior.

“Freedom of assembly” has been abused by the “occupiers” who have seen fit to desecrate the property where they assembled.  That is not freedom. It is criminal for it makes no difference whether the property is public or private, no one is granted a right to destroy or damage property.

Too often, we do not think of these as “principles” and yet the importance of their being the same day-in and day-out cannot be gainsaid.

The Founding Fathers obviously had a strong and unshakeable belief in the Golden Rule.  Even a cursory examination of the specifics delineated in the Constitution show an approach of consistent fairness and equitable distribution of power and authority.  They were more concerned with being sure that all citizens, not just themselves, be treated fairly, honestly and with understanding.

Thus, we can see the importance of the “principles” which they believed were founded on “natural law”.  As noted in the Declaration of Independence, “natural law” stated that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Too often misconstrued today, the “pursuit of happiness” was intended to mean each individual being free to achieve his or her maximum potential whether it be in the arts, sciences, manufacturing, philosophy or any labor.  It carried with it the principle of “entitlement to the fruits of their labors”, regardless of what their labors might be, property often being the result of such individual effort.  The entire fabric of the Constitution is structured to ensure the protection of the rights so recognized.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch