The Constitution a citizen’s view. Why a citizen’s view?

Innumerable treatises, articles, books and promotional documents have been written about the two founding documents of our country. Most are by lawyers, educators or a political presence of some note with credentials that would cover any monument desired.

It became quite clear that the one source that was missing was the average citizen. What was his or her understanding and interpretation of what those critical documents said and intended? Thus, this series of articles all focused on either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. No claim is made for expertise other than the ability to read and comprehend the meaning of the words written. Yes, the author did pursue an American History major at college. Perhaps that is the reason for the undying interest in the documents and the founding of our country.

One of the very first things that attracted attention was the language.
It is not legalease. It is genuinely, “plain English”, albeit somewhat stilted in places. Unfortunately, our population is losing the ability to understand “plain English” rather rapidly.

Next, all statements were positive. They either directed an action or responsibility or explicitly prohibited one. That made it easy to know what was intended. (Read the Bill of Rights Amendments and see if you don’t agree!)

They also limited the areas of activity in which they believed a government responsible to the citizenry should be “allowed” to operate. If you have not read Art. I, Sec. 8 recently, please do so. Then you will be familiar with the 17 areas in which authorization was provided for a federal government to operate.

Recognizing the natural human desire to always enlarge a sphere of influence, the Founders sought to provide a curb to such activity. Deciding just three branches would be necessary to form a stable government (the “three-legged stool concept”) , they believed they created a system of “checks and balances”. This would ensure that no one branch would override or usurp the powers of another branch. Have we been vigilant enough to maintain that “balance” or has it gotten out of whack?

When they declared that the Constitution would be the “supreme law of the land”, this did not include the idea that a Treaty with a foreign entity could override it. Such treaties had to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Constitution. There is no question but what they believed in the innate goodness and judgment of the common man, expecting him (or her) to educate themselves about the details of the problem to be resolved. This was not a question of eliminating conflicts. Rather, it meant that others, just as they had done in drafting the Constitution, would arrive at an equitable and eminently just resolution to their difficulties and differences. The ultimate good was for the whole without destroying the independence of the individual in the process.

The words reinforce the independence of the individual “colonies” who came together to create a “federal” (a voluntary association of sovereign states) rather than a “national” (single homogeneous entity) government. Amendments IX and X address this point in a conclusive manner.

To quote from Jefferson’s greatest epic, the Declaration of Independence, “ . . . That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . [with] full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce . . . ” and more.

All individuals, young or old, irrespective of educational level and with an interest in our country are invited to comment, criticize, suggest or otherwise respond to these articles. But, only after you have read or re-read the two documents in question.

That’s my desire. What’s yours? I can be reached at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch