And now come the
questions:
Where in the foregoing list of 17 powers do you find any mention of a Department of Education?
Where does it grant
the power to the federal government to levy a tax and then send that money to a
foreign government?
Can you find the
words to justify a Department of Energy?
Is there power
granted to create a Department of Agriculture?
Does it say anything
about allowing a private bank (the Federal Reserve) to have exclusive control
over the money of the nation, determining its value and substance, if any?
To which body does
it grant the power to declare war? Can
you find a Declaration of War in the case of Korea, Viet Nam or Iraq? Calling them “police actions” hardly
satisfies or justifies the killing of thousands of American soldiers.
Obviously, the point
here is that in re-reading just the
basic powers granted to the federal government under the contract
(constitution) with the states, it becomes difficult to justify all the actions
undertaken by the federal government during the past 100 years. Attempts to rationalize the actions as part
of the opening paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power
To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States . . .” doesn’t really achieve that end.
Note that the reference for Welfare relates to the United States, not
the citizenry. On the face of it, any
distribution of monies to a given group, organization or interested party other
than a state (and there it would have to be evenly distributed to each and
every state) would not be valid or appropriate.
Our point is that
you must read the words as written.
While some words may have multiple meanings, they have a basic premise
or foundation. The Founding Fathers were
extremely careful in their selection and it would appear that they examined
each one for how the reader would understand it. Yes, each individual will undoubtedly “interpret”
whatever the word is in their own terms.
Such interpretation may or may not be as intended. This emphasizes the importance of “applying”
the words in evaluating whatever the subject under discussion involves. To go beyond this and start “interpreting”
the meaning of a particular word or clause can automatically distort its
original meaning or intent. Supreme
Court Justice Harry Blackmun notwithstanding, the “penumbra” of the word(s) do
not create an umbrella for the incorporation of the Justice’s own ideas or
predisposition. And, the continuous
repetition of an erroneous idea no matter how desirable it might be is
nevertheless wrong and does not make it fact or irrevocably incorporated in the
basic text. It was Hitler and his propaganda minister Goebbels,
who understood the value of repetition in perpetuating and gaining acceptance of
a lie (or falsehood).
Had the Founding
Fathers wanted the “penumbra” interpretation to exist, it is doubtful they
would have included the IXth and Xth Amendments both of which reinforce the
specific, limited nature of the federal government’s powers. Having any Justice’s ideas incorporated in a
specific clause of the Constitution would, in order to become official, require
an Amendment to the basic document.
That’s my view. What’s yours?
Contact me at constitionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch
