Why limit government?

There are lots of reasons but as we have become more “progressive” since about 1900, it would appear that a large segment of our population would rather have an “unlimited” government that provides for their every wish.  For those who disagree with that thought, you might want to check the expansion of the welfare rolls and the number receiving food stamps on a regular basis.

That’s a far cry from what the country was and what the Founding Fathers intended as they created our Constitution.  They believed very firmly in a limited government.   Having been under the thumb of a monarch with absolute power over every aspect of their lives, they wanted none of it.  But, perhaps most important, they were willing to “stand on their own” and “be responsible for their own well-being”.  Maybe “they had no choice, “living in a wilderness” with “savages” on their outskirts.  None of that deterred them from their desire for freedom and liberty.

So, what do we mean when we say a “limited government”?

The constitution was in the nature of a contract.  It was a contract between the new federal government and the individual, independent and sovereign, states (or colonies if you prefer).  It stated that the federal government had certain powers and the states retained everything else (Amendments IX and X).  Both parties were expected to live up to their part of the “bargain”.

The Founders were concerned that a federal government might become too powerful if not constrained by specific obligations and responsibilities as detailed in a constitution. They chose their words carefully, considering all possibilities as they worked to define a document that would withstand the tests of time and the onslaught of individuals (they were not called politicians back then).  While they foresaw the potential for distortions and misinterpretations, they could not possibly conceive of the “penumbra” and “emanations” from their words that would allow or justify the creation of departments and agencies totally unrelated to the clauses of the constitution.  Areas that were not defined such as education, energy, environment, the Federal Reserve, etc. have all come about through subtle interpretations of designated powers.  Many have never been challenged or reviewed by the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. 

What we have witnessed is a “normal” growth of an “organ”.  In this case a government which, by its nature and environment in which it operates, will always seek to grow in ways not known or imagined at the time of creation.  Logically, it might be argued that if a population grows, so should the government responsible for managing its “national” affairs.  Keeping a government “small” and forcing it to remain within described bounds is no mean feat. It cannot be done without leaders of integrity and strong character dedicated to the principles underlying its founding.

That we have not had enough such leaders since about 1900 may be contested by today’s “progressives” and “liberals” but there can be no denying that the present situation is a result of their policies and actions during the past century.  Today, our nation has an unsustainable debt load, an educational system that continues to graduate students of lower academic achievement than their foreign contemporaries, a spreading bureaucracy that issues rules and regulations with little Congressional approval or oversight, and a government that is spreading like an octopus into every corner of individual life and livelihood.

That’s why a limited government was our Founder’s choice and gift!  Have we squandered our inheritance?  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright, 2015 Hillard W. Welch

Presidential Executive Orders

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America . . . [he] shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy . . . [he] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . and he shall nominate, ad by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . have the Power to fill up Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate . . .he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ” Art. II, Secs. 1-4.

Please reread that paragraph. It defines the duties and responsibilities of the President. If you can find anywhere in there the words, “executive order(s)” you may be suffering from a penumbra or emanation.

From the very beginning, Presidents have issued Executive Orders. That may be reasonable and logical given the responsibility to see that the “Laws be faithfully executed.” The words would seem to direct the President to restrict his orders to implementing the laws passed by Congress and ascertain that they are being faithfully executed! There isn’t anything said about “legislation” or “legislating” since that would mean the President is beyond his authority and encroaching on the exclusive Congressional responsibility that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” (Art. I, Sec. 1).

For a few examples of Presidents having by-passed their Constitutional responsibilities and commitments, let's start with Abraham Lincoln. Unilaterally, he set aside a basic, guaranteed right, by denying the “writ of habeas corpus” (Art. I, Sec. 9) to those accused of crimes against the government (Union forces essentially). Accepted and approved at the time, it became obvious in subsequent examination that it was unconstitutional. It should have been rejected on those grounds at the time pronounced.

A second and equal egregious example would be in the Roosevelt's (FDR) order 39066 which served to incarcerate 150,000 Japanese Americans at the beginning of WW II simply because they were of Japanese ancestry or descendants thereof. While the Supreme Court and later Presidents and Congress addressed this abomination, it did not remove the blight on our record of ignoring the “rule of law” vs the rule of men!

And finally, we come to today and the most recent Executive Order that supposedly has the force of law to entitle illegal immigrants to share in the benefits of lawful citizens. This situation is still open at the time of this writing. Nevertheless, if one is a student of the Constitution and its provisions, one has to ask whereby does the President believe he has the authority or power to establish such a ruling? Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to “legislate”! That, as noted earlier, is the sole prerogative of Congress. It would appear to behoove Congress therefore to step into such situations and deny the individual, department or division of the government an attempt to usurp power they were never granted.

 

Beyond the examples given, even a cursory examination of the many rulings of the EPA demonstrates that this department is regularly issuing orders that restrict the activities of citizens and their businesses yet take on the force of law. This also appears to violate the limited government concept embodied in the Constitution. Those are my views. What are yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com               © Copyright 2015 Hillard W. Welch

 

Man Made???

History should have taught us one thing, if nothing else, about governments.  They are all man-made!

So whence cometh the idea that they should be all powerful or be able to dictate to you, a citizen, what you can do, what you will be paid, where you shall work, for whom, how long, your health care etc., etc.? Here again, history has taught us, or should have, that it is power that begets authority and it is power that seeks control and becomes corrupt.

The Founding Fathers who created the Constitution must have understood all of that plus a great deal more about human nature and man’s lust for power.  Otherwise, why would they have worked so hard to establish a government with defined limits of authority and power?  The importance of freedom was never very far from their thinking.  Understanding that despite how hard they might try, they would never be able to create a document that would prevent the usurpation of power by those individuals who, whether intentionally or unintentionally, desire to control others and bend or distort the agreed-upon limitations to their own desires or benefit.

Instead of understanding and agreeing to abide by the rules of the game as detailed in the Constitution, we have seen even, in our nation’s short history, an unbelievable twisting, interpolation of ideas or outright violation of the restraints stipulated.  Businesses have sought government intervention to protect them from competitors or to achieve a preferential position to receive contracts or regulations targeted toward their interests.

We’ve seen the growth of lobbying to the point where it has become a billion dollar profession of its own.   What are the benefits for the average citizen?  It would be difficult if not impossible to define.  Yet, those who practice the profession exert great influence on the direction of the country as well as the regulation of commerce and industry.

The most distinguishing feature of the American founding was that it recognized a “higher authority” than man!  In the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson penned the words, “ . . . to assume . . . equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .” Those few words established for what followed that the Founders would be responsible for their acts and commitments to more than just other human beings.

It is doubtful that man could create a universe, let alone one that functions in equilibrium.  The riddle of the universe remains unsolved and perhaps never will be.  What is important, however, is that we recognize that man is imperfect and that the governments he/she creates will suffer from the same inability to achieve perfection.  The Founders knew this as Ben Franklin expressed when commenting on the Constitution,  “Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”

We have over 200 years of operation under the Constitution.  While we adhered to its dictums, for the most part, during our 1^st 100 years, there is no question but what from 1900 on we have been trending away from our foundation.  Government has become unbridled, a riderless horse.  Anything goes and we have lost our understanding of why the Founders thought there was a higher authority than their man-made constitution.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  © Copyright 2015  Hillard W. Welch

Learning to read

As children we were probably taught first to recognize symbols or pictographs followed by giving them a name.  The next step was memorizing the connection between the picture and its name.  We undoubtedly mimicked what our mother told us and tried to duplicate the sounds provided.

We then progressed to phonics, recognizing sounds which when connected resulted in our learning actual words.

Wonderful!  What an achievement.  Too bad we have lost it all as we became adults or at least elected officials.

Our elected officials have either forgotten what they were taught or have decided to ignore it completely.  Example: how many elected officials abide by their “oath of office” or can relate to that part of the constitution under which they supposedly sponsored or voted for a particular act?

Don’t hold your breath.

Which brings us to the point of this article.  Perhaps we should require remedial reading for all elected officials to be sure they understand the significance of the job on which they are about to enter.  Not only do they appear not to recognize the words as written, but more importantly, to ignore them as if they never existed.

The Founding Fathers didn’t write them down to be ignored – but understood and followed!

The entire Constitution contains only 4400 words.  Yet in simple readily understandable language for even an 8^th grader, it established a limited government to serve and protect the rights of the individual citizens.  Contrast that with the present legislative approach when almost every Act contains more than 13,000 words and encroaches on the freedoms of the average citizen.

It is more than a case of not being able to read.  It is willful misunderstanding, misapplication or outright distortion.  We have developed a culture of “corruption” in which the common mantra is “if you can get away with it, it’s OK!”  The Constitution uses the word “regulate” and yet when viewed in the original context, it means “referee” -  requiring that all participants play by the rules!  It has been reduced to meaning only “control”.

Words do have meaning and the Founders chose theirs carefully.  The Constitution has been considered a “negative” document because it “limits” the powers of the federal government while reserving to the states or the people (Amendments IX and X) any unenumerated powers or rights.  In fact, a cursory review of the documents reveals the use of “No” or “Not” a total of 86 times.  That’s more than any other word.

Wouldn’t you think that even the least educated of our elected officials could understand the word, “NO”?

The obvious avoidance or outright disregard for the provisions of the Constitution must tell you something about the character and integrity of the individuals who seek public office.  Is it personal greed or a desire for power?  Neither of these appear to have been present among the Founders who created the Constitution.  Their governing philosophy appears to have been that of the Golden Rule.  Consider if you will the concept that if the Founders wrote a document that would treat all individuals fairly and justly, how could they themselves loose?  No way since the document applied to all.

Their firmness in a limited government speaks volumes with respect to their understanding of human nature and the frailness of human stature.   They knew the meaning of each word.  Why can’t our modern elected officials strive for the same?  Reading the document is critical.  Reading the actual words is paramount to understanding!

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

A Dollar’s Worth? . . . Is it still your Money?

Probably not too many readers will remember the saying, “Good as Gold”!  Yet, there was a time in the past when those three words referred to the value of the US Dollar.  Then, the piece of paper that denominated the value also carried the statement that the paper was redeemable in gold at any bank, the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve office.

At that time, a dollar was a dollar.  A paper certificate could be used in commerce certifying that the paper  was redeemable in the actual metal stated.  The coin represented would  contain a specific amount of actual gold together with other metal necessary to make it  durable enough to withstand repeated handlings.  This was also true for silver coins as noted on the Silver Certificate.  The important point here is that, true to the Constitution, the certificates issued did represent the metal coinage and were redeemable in the metal specified.  This gave confidence to the recipient that the “paper” was real, despite the widespread attitude that “paper money” wasn’t money at all.

When in 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, those in charge were determined to achieve an elastic currency, one the sum total of which could be expanded or contracted at will.  To forestall public concern, the Fed originally issued gold and/or silver certificates, each defining the redeemable feature important to the unsuspecting public.

Ultimately through several steps, the Fed moved from the gold and/or silver certificates to the present paper which says, Federal Reserve Note.  Notes legally are promises to pay, nothing more.  They do not convey an actual monetary value.  Thus, the paper currency subsequently and presently issued by the Federal Reserve is nothing more than a promise.  There is no indication of any gold or silver on deposit in the Treasury to support the value of the note being printed.

When the Federal Reserve was able to remove the gold or silver certificate and replace it with a note which was neither redeemable in precious metal or exchangeable for anything of value, the point long sought by many bankers and financial artists had been achieved.  They had a fully elastic currency without any backing whatsoever.   The only support it had or has is the confidence people exhibit in the government of the United States. 

So what is a dollar worth?  Name whatever figure you want and you can rest assured that it is wrong.  The acceptance of the piece of paper by the merchant or tradesman from whom you want either product or service is the only thing giving it value.  Rather scary when you think about it.  Instead of being, as it once was, “As Good As Gold”, it is now as you may have read, “not worth the paper it’s printed on.”

However, the United States is not the only country running on fiat money.  Most other industrialized nations have succumbed to the same approach.  While many countries have gold and/or silver in their vaults, they do not use it to support their currency since they have cut all ties between their paper and the precious metal previously used to substantiate the value.  They, as we, are running a “confidence game.”

Where it will end is not predictable at this time though there is a lot of speculation.

So what is a dollar worth?  And is it still your money or is it just government paper?  There’s more to the story for another time.  Comments, questions, suggestions welcome.  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  © Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch  

Freedom of what?

We talk a lot about freedom and often refer to our Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment I.

Yet do we really think about what we mean when we say we have the “freedom to do so and so”?

Freedom of expression?  Freedom of religion?  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of the press?  Freedom of everything?

Realistically, do we have freedom of speech?  If you are a student on a college campus today, the chances are you do not.  Speech codes, while patently unconstitutional, are practiced at any number of schools today.  And, for the most part are upheld by the Supreme Court.  The claims, whether justified or not, are that so called “hate” speech can be destructive, detrimental to the ability to teach and learn and any number of other “reasons”, all calculated to control the student’s speech on campus! 

In the same vein, there are those who would and do try to restrict political speech.

Have we passed the point of fairness and are rapidly becoming incapable of self-government?  While epithets can be painful, there was a time when children responded with “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me!”  

Freedom of worship?  The amendment says, “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”  As you witness municipalities restricting their citizens placement of religious scenes, even on private property, do you believe the government is abiding by the restriction to “keep its hands out of religion?”  It seems that even the Supreme Court wants to accept the idea that there is a wall of separation between church and state.  The document itself states that government cannot dictate the establishment of a religion nor can it restrict (prohibit) your freedom to espouse openly whatever religion you profess.  Consider whether that is the present situation or whether the government is “dictating” what you as a citizen can do with respect to religion.  Government should remain neutral, denying either side a positive response.  Constitutionally, the concern should remain at the state level and not the federal government.

Freedom of the press?  Since when?  From the very beginning, there have been those opposed to the idea that an editor could write whatever he or she wanted and publish whatever he or she considered appropriate or in context with their purpose.  Editors have always had final say over what gets printed.  That is part of their responsibility.   If the efforts please the readers, the publication succeeds.  If they do not, the activity will probably cease to exist.  You may disagree with an editor but that does not deny you the right or opportunity to start your own publication or find one to present your views, whatever they may be.

Freedom to assemble?  Most municipalities have rules and/or regulations on public meetings or assemblies.  But, the decision as to who or what organization is approved now rests almost exclusively with whoever the person is in charge of the area involved.

As for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.  Good luck.    Right or wrong, the roadblocks to such action have historically prevented any success.  Most often, the individual or group seeking such a redress is declared by the court hearing the case as not having “standing” and thus is disqualified from being able to plead their case.     

 

It would seem that the only true freedom an individual has today, is freedom of thought.  Just be careful to whom you express it.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2014  Hillard W. Welch

What the Founders Sought . . .

It has become fashionable to talk of a “Living Constitution” and to downgrade the original as being “out of date”.  The idea that it was written over two centuries ago should be sufficient in some people’s minds to warrant a change or rewriting.  For some reason they seem to think that because we live in a different century we should therefore write a document for the times.

What is being forgotten or intentionally overlooked is what the Founders were trying to accomplish.  What were they seeking when they created our Constitution?

One mistake that seems to be popular today is to claim that our Constitution is based on the Bible.  The other side says that is not so.

Our opinion?  Neither side has it right.  They, like most readers, automatically inject their own ideas into the words they read.  They “interpret” the words in order to have them support their prejudices or what they would like them to say or mean.  Such an approach invariably leads to a “mis-interpretation” or “mis-understanding” of what the Founders sought.  It attempts a contemporary explanation rather than an appreciation of the words themselves.

 

Let’s be specific.

The Founders sought to create a civil government managed by self-governing individuals.  Note the emphasis on self-governing.  They didn’t attempt to create a “Kingdom of God”, witness the fact that the word “God” does not appear in the text.  The reference to the date of execution is stated as “in the year of our Lord”.

While the Founders were religious individuals, they had witnessed and knew enough of the problems created by a mandated national religion (the Church of England) and the Catholic Church to want no part of such dictated worship.  Thus, the oft misunderstood “establishment” clause.  The words state quite simply that the federal government cannot establish a national religion.  The Amendment further states that you cannot be “prohibit[ed] the free exercise thereof.”  Any problems understanding that?  You are, by right, able to practice your religion as your conscience dictates, anywhere and at any time, no government interference.

Believing as strongly as they did, they injected for the Senators and Representatives that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The few words included in the Constitution state quite clearly and conclusively that religion is not to be a consideration of the federal government.

The Founders were creating a civil government.  Thus no mention of “God” or religious involvement.  In their minds there was no need to since they obviously did not want other influences injected in the management of the government they sought to create.  They had witnessed the failings of a weak and poorly structured “alliance” in the Articles of Confederation.  They learned from their earlier mistakes and sought a government that would incorporate the 13 fiercely independent sovereign colonies (states) in a federal union that could face the world on equal terms.  The result was a document simple, yet comprehensive enough to embrace the problems of a rapidly growing nation.

In structuring the federal government, they included only those powers they considered absolutely necessary for the protection of the individual citizens, their property and the integrity of the United States as a nation.  That’s why there are only 17 listed in Art. I, Sec. 8.  The 18^th item concerns Congress and its power to write laws for the implementation of the powers defined.  The reader should review Amendments IX and X to appreciate the fact that it was truly a limited federal government being established.

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