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
