A right to privacy?

Part 1 of 2

Since the word “privacy” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the question of whether the individual citizen has a “right to privacy” is not within the province of the federal government to decide.

Any attempt on the part of the federal government or any of its branches, departments or agencies to express such a decision is, prima facie, a violation of the limited government as provided by the Constitution.

That having been said, we must still review what the Supreme Court proclaimed in its infinite wisdom as the “law of the land”.

Two cases come to mind as relevant to this discussion:

1.      Griswold vs Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

2.      Roe vs Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

In Part 1 we will include only the Griswold vs Connecticut case.  Both of these cases stretch beyond reasonable bounds the provisions of the Constitution.  To be specific, let’s look at the first case.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority decision in Griswold vs Connecticut in which he stated, that the right (to privacy) was to be found in the penumbras and emanations of other constitutional protections. 

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., commented, “When Justices interpret the Constitution they speak for their community, not for themselves alone. The act of interpretation must be undertaken with full consciousness that it is,  in a very real sense, the community’s interpretation that is sought. . . . But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time.”  (Georgetown Univ. Oct. 12, 1985)

With respect to the question at hand, “privacy”, he wrote,  "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

In your writer’s opinion, the very thought of “interpret” tells the reader that you are about to receive a personal opinion with all the nuances of prejudice that the individual harbors. You are not going to receive a considered evaluation of the law under discussion as to whether it conforms to the Constitution or violates any of its principles.  Staying with the original words is considered “passé” in the eyes of justices such as Brennan and Douglas.  They believe that the Constitution should be a “living document” that is adapted or adjusted to contemporary times, morals, practices, or whatever their understanding of the moment might be.  They deny the idea that the Constitution presented basic principles and go further in their concept that principles change, or can be changed, due to the times or circumstances. 

It would be interesting to hear their argument in favor of repealing or ignoring the principle of gravity!  So far as this writer is aware, that principle has held true since recorded history or its first discovery by Isaac Newton.  They conveniently ignore the idea of “nature’s laws or laws of nature’s God” as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.  They may even deny that there are “inalienable rights” which each citizen has upon being borne.

As a consequence, they fall into the trap of “interpreting” the Constitution rather than “applying it” to the case under consideration.  They fail to determine whether the subject is even appropriate for their review. 

In Part 2 we will add discussion of Roe vs Wade with respect to privacy and conclude our essay.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  ©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch

Laws, regulations and orders

Art. I, Sec. 1. States, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

No other branch of the government is given such power!

Therefore, anything done subsequent to the proper passing of a law by Congress and its acceptance by the President with his signature, should be in support or execution of the law for its intended purposes.  Nothing is said about “interpreting” or “expanding” such laws by any department or officer of the government.  Nor is there any mention of “creating rules or regulations” that would extend the power of any agency of government beyond those defined in the law.

If we consider what the Founding Fathers tried to provide us, we come face to face with the fact that for the past 100+ years, we have been trying in every conceivable way to avoid abiding by the framework they constructed and by which we were supposed to operate.  Contrast the last century with the preceding one. We immediately recognize a difference that, while starting small, has grown over the years to the point where today, the federal government believes it can (and according to progressives, should) be involved in every aspect of a citizen’s life.  That hardly sounds like the freedom for which our Founders  fought, died and pledged their sacred honor.

While the Founders were not demi-gods, they most assuredly had high principles, strong morals and were dedicated to honesty in their efforts to produce a government of self-governing individuals.  They accepted the idea that man was fallible and as Jefferson wrote, needed to be “bound down with the chains of a constitution”.  Our “free-wheeling” “anything goes” society today is ample evidence of their sagacity.

A basic reading of the Constitution should lead almost anyone to the realization that laws made under the constitution should only be in pursuit of the various powers granted by that document.  Nothing is said about any other function or department of the government having such power.  Yet, we allow departments such as the IRS to issue rules or regulations that take on the force of law!  Technically, the IRS can only issue rules or regulations in furtherance of the power of the law that established the unit.  Yet, the IRS goes blithely on even investigating individuals who disagree with the administration in power.  It is certainly questionable that they actually have such power.  Yet who is to stop them?

From this we ask the question about “executive” orders, something with which the present administration seems enamored.  Can Executive Orders, even by the President, change the law established by Congress?

It would not appear so according to the Constitution since the President is not provided with any “legislative powers”, only a “veto” for those with which he disagrees.  Even for those, he must provide Congress with a reason for disapproval.  At present, Presidential Executive Orders are taking on the force of law.  That, on the face of it, is unconstitutional since he has no such authority.  Technically, he can only issue Executive Orders in furtherance of his responsibility “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Creating laws are the responsibility of the Congress.

If “we the people” are supposed to play by the rules as established by the Constitution, shouldn’t we require that our elected or appointed representatives do the same?  Otherwise we are being asked to play in a “rigged” game!  I’m opposed.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Contact me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  ©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch

“Posterity” . . . , Whose?

The preamble to the Constitution states, in part, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, . . .”

Well, that can only mean us!  You and me and all the others in between from the time those immortal words were written.

The real question is, what have we done with our inheritance?  How have we managed it?  Have we been faithful to the ideals and principles embodied in the document our forefathers so carefully crafted?

Or have we squandered our inheritance?

It was Lord Acton who said, “power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Is there anyone who would deny that corruption seems to be a way of life today?  According to the media (perhaps not those referred to as the “mass media”) our government fabricates data (latest census figures before the 2012 election), lies to us with a straight face (“you can keep your health insurance, period!”) and inflation is only 1% (but, of course, the figures don’t include the basics of life like food, clothing, gasoline).  Those are perhaps the most recognizable instances. 

As the “posterity” now in charge, we must ask ourselves, “how did we let this happen?”  When did we take our eye off the ball so that we now owe more than our great grandchildren may ever be able to repay?  How did the US sink from a world leader to an also ran country where our creditors could destroy us at will?

Not easy questions to answer and there is no intention of trying to do so here.

Rather let us consider major instances of abandoning or overriding the Constitution.

A most recognizable starting point is Teddy Roosevelt who took the lead when he declared he was a “progressive”, believing that he could do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.  His administration expanded federal power and activities beyond those authorized. 

Another major step without constitutional basis, was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  Sold to the public as a means of controlling the banking trusts and big business, it was anything but.  Numerous steps along the way have created a fiat currency without any solid backing.  Any housewife or mother can tell you that her dollars are not worth what they once were.  Was this accidental or planned?  A disturbing question.

Next came Woodrow Wilson and his “war to make the world safe for democracy!”  That in itself was a repudiation of the Founding Fathers.  They abhorred “democracy”, considering it the worst form of government possible.  The word “democracy” does not appear in either of the founding documents!

Every effort was made in crafting the US government to prevent the devastation possible when “majority rules”.  That is why they sought to create a government of laws and not of men!

Wilson was followed by FDR, the master socialist with a patrician heritage.  Despite his programs, the only thing that ended the depression was WW II!  While his socialist experiments are with us today (some are considered good and helpful) we will never know what would have happened if the federal government had kept ‘hands off’!   When governments dictate, freedom of the individual suffers.

Each step listed has taken us further  toward an all powerful central government and a socialist democracy.  Such governments are invariably overloaded with bureaucracy and unelected individuals who make the decisions for the average citizen.  Free choice is not a consideration.

Have we wasted our heritage?  One need only recall that the Founders pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” for us as their posterity.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at “constitutionviews@gmail.com.  ©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

 

A Living Constitution?

All the talk about a living constitution would tend to imply that the one we have is dead or certainly moribund.

Actually, there isn’t anything dead about the present document, if we would but apply what it says to our present situation.

For example, it says that States must pay their debts in gold or silver!  (Art. I, Sec. 10) Wow, what would that do for our monetary base?  That alone could have prevented the overwhelming debt we now face.

It also restricts the areas in which the federal government is empowered.  Why?  Because those were considered the only powers a federal government would require in order to guarantee the unalienable rights of the citizens.  It goes even further in Amendments IX and X to state that those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.  Together these two amendments make it clear that the states retain the powers related to the well being of their respective citizenry and can enact whatever laws, regulations or prohibitions they deem necessary for the citizens to pursue their own best interests.  Is there something we’ve missed here?   It would seem to be a very lively idea even in today’s political environment.

Let’s look at the present federal government structure and compare it to the powers granted by the constitution.   One cannot help but recognize that there are many activities for which there is no authorization.  If that makes it a dead document, then we should certainly hope for a resurrection – and soon. 

The growth of the federal government is beyond all reasonable understanding.  Wherein does the federal government find authorization for the Department of Health and Human Services?  General welfare?  (Art. I, Sec. 8)  That would have to be a misreading of the term as the modifier “general” makes it applicable to all and the entire country, not a specific group.  Nor does it allow for discrimination which would require specific allocation of resources to an identified person, group or organization. 

Maybe the question should be, “are we killing the Constitution by what we are allowing?”  In other words, if the Constitution is not dead or must be redefined as a “living document”, have we and the previous generations not been paying enough attention to what the document told us were the proper functions of government in order to protect our God given rights?

Instead of paying attention, we have allowed egotistical politicians to usurp power and distort both the meaning and intent of any number of clauses to the point where we barely recognize any relationship between the activities of our present government and what the Founding Fathers provided.  A most recent example of this is the NSA surveillance and eaves-dropping on private citizens which is a blatant defiance of  Amendment IV: “The  right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . ” 

The only way such invasion of privacy could be accomplished legally is by issuance of a warrant which, according to the Amendment must be specific as to what is being sought and where such search may be conducted.  It would appear that the Amendment is alive but not doing well as the Federal leviathan simply does what it wants.

No, the Constitution is not dead despite the efforts of many to bury it alive.  To recover will require the election of individuals with the strength of character and integrity to abide by their Oath of Office.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

Re-read the constitution - Part 3

The last paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 reads: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

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

Let’s re-read the constitution – Part 2

In Part 1, the reason for a “citizen’s view” was put forth.  Playing on that point, it is most interesting to note that the entire Constitution plus the Declaration of Independence  and several pages of introduction, are contained in a pocket size brochure measuring just 6-1/2 by 3-1/4 inches.  The entire brochures  consists of just 52  pages..  Contrast that, if you will, with the 1,000 plus page documents which the present Congress is turning out, unread, on an almost weekly basis, and you can appreciate the wisdom and knowledge of our Founding Fathers.

They didn’t waste words.  They chose them carefully and with a full understanding of their meaning.  There were no “big” words, unusual words, foreign words or unfamiliar words even in today’s distorted slanguage!  They, literally, wanted and expected every citizen to be able to read, appreciate and understand what was written.  While they knew it was a “contract” between the states and a “new federal government”, the citizens were to act within their respective states to accept or reject it.  Despite the simplicity of the document, it was a struggle to have it ratified by 9 states in order for it to be put into operation.  An entire series of articles known today as the Federalist Papers was written to educate the general public as to the merits of the new form of government and thereby seek their approval. 

In Part 1, it was noted that the government was to be the servant of the people and not the reverse (certainly not to the extent to which we find ourselves today).  Viewed in that light, the federal government’s responsibilities are to protect the citizen’s natural rights and provide a level playing field for each individual to prosper to whatever honest extent possible.  In the basic document, the federal government is granted only 17 defined powers (the 18^th one provides Congress the power to pass laws to execute the other 17).  All 17 stipulate only actions best performed by a federal government in pursuit of maintaining a free and independent nation, managing its own affairs and being prepared to defend its territory and citizens should the need arise.

Despite their best efforts, they were not able to garner the required support until they agreed to add what are known as the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution).  The Founders’ word was good and the first Congress proceeded to create the required amendments.  How different from what we find today where Congress can pass a law and it is almost immediately disregarded in the execution.  The immigration laws for the past decade or so would be but one example.

On another subject: the 1^st Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: . . .”  That means only one thing: the federal government cannot dictate a national religion or prevent you or me from expressing our own conviction.  There is no mention of “separation of church and state” so where does that idea come from?   All the words state quite clearly, “when it comes to religion, Federal Government, keep your hands off!”  Yet, there are those today who keep trying to inject meanings that are not there. 

There is no substitute for reading, even re-reading, the Constitution to know what it says.  In so doing, you’ll come to appreciate what the Founding Fathers gave us and why we should defend and protect it for ourselves and our posterity.  To be continued.  Send me your thoughts and comments at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

 

Let’s re-read the Constitution

First let’s explain why a “citizen’s view”.  The Constitution was written for all of us, not just the elected officials, all of us.  And that means you and me.  In the preamble it says, “ . . . secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . ”  That’s us.

 

Therefore, we as ordinary citizens should be able to understand and appreciate what the constitution says, what it allows and what it prohibits.  We don’t need a lawyer, a professor or some appointed official (bureaucrat) to tell us.  We can read it for ourselves and apply it.  In fact, that is exactly what we should be doing and should have been doing all those years when the politicians kept pushing us in the direction they wanted.

 

Not enough of the citizenry today have read the Constitution and it is doubtful that much of Congress has.  Or at least it is difficult to believe that they have when you read what they vote for and the politics that is played with “pork” and “special interests”, all of which is probably un-constitutional at the outset since it violates one or more of the specific statements in that document.

 

Too often, a “trade off” is made so that one section of the country gets a favorable project in exchange for something else from another section.  That is not either the intent or the words of the constitution.  The Constitution is a contract that engages all (every citizen and every state) as parties to the agreement.  Thus, any violation of the provisions of that document is unacceptable and should be challenged on the face of it.

 

Look at the “commerce clause” so often used as justification today for all sorts of activity including health care.  All it actually says is: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several sates, and with the Indian Tribes.”  Can anyone show me where it says “regulate commerce between individuals or companies?”  Can anyone tell me where it contains the power to “tax” someone if they don’t comply with a government mandate?

 

This is why it is so important to read and understand the exact wording as the Founding Fathers presented them.  One only needs to remember that the Founders argued for days over the exact wording so that any possible confusion or misunderstanding would be eliminated.

 

Taking another part, “Congress shall have the Power . . . to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, . . . etc.“  Nothing is said about allowing an outside private group to perform such functions.  Despite the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, it is still highly questionable that it would withstand a constitutional challenge.  As it now stands, we the people have absolutely no control over our money!  It is all decided for us and when you consider the deterioration of the purchasing value of a dollar since the Federal Reserve came into existence, you can appreciate why the Founding Fathers placed the control in Congress!

 

There was an underlying concept in the creation of the Constitution.  That concept was that the government was the servant of the people, not the other way around.  Now ask yourself if today you believe that is true or if you are now considered a servant of the government?  After all, almost every day you are told of a new regulation or law with which you must comply or else.  How do you interpret that?

To be continued....

 

That’s my view.  What’s yours?    Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2013  Hillard W. Welch