Do words have meaning?

Most of us were probably taught that words have specific meanings and there was usually a basic meaning that permeated all interpretations of it. Thus, the use of a particular word would convey to the reader or listener a specific meaning.
Having said all that, let’s look at some of what has happened to the Constitution and its “words” since they were put on paper and agreed to by the states in 1787.

According to Jefferson and Madison, the government powers were to be “limited” to only those specific areas as defined in Article I, Sec. 8. In the opening paragraph of that section it notes that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises” (in other words, taxes) must be uniform throughout the United States. “Graduated” was not a part of the word or words used, yet Congress and the Supreme Court have accepted the idea that it is OK to have graduated taxes. The concept of a graduated income tax (personal or corporate) was originated by Karl Marx as a method for redistributing the wealth of a country.

On the other hand, Hamilton and his followers, including Abraham Lincoln, took the position that the words “general welfare” and “liberty” were expansive permitting the government to do almost anything it wanted so long as those three words were applied to the ultimate purpose of whatever was being proposed. It is this interpretation that has resulted in a greater concentration of power and control in the Federal (now more appropriately termed “central”) government.

While Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun held sway during the formative years of the country, Hamilton and his followers including Clay continued to press for an enlarged “central” government.

The next major “word” interpretation came with the XIVth Amendment. This amendment has been the basis for the Federal government applying the first eight of the ten Bill of Rights amendments to the states by interpreting the phrase, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, etc.” By this the Federal government, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court, has over-ridden state constitutions that allowed or endorsed school prayers, that regulated public distribution of licentious material, restricted display of nudity, and other aspects of civil conduct that are most assuredly the province of the states under the Constitution.

We seem to have drifted, or been lead, into the world of Humpty Dumpty who said, “Words mean what I say they do . . . No more, and no less.” The Supreme Court has used the term “penumbra” to stretch the meaning of either the specific word or clause to accommodate the justice’s idea of what should be done or accepted rather than what the word or clause specifically states. In the famous case (Griswold vs. Connecticut, 1965) Justice William O. Douglas introduced the idea of “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights whereby he wrote the opinion overturning a Connecticut law forbidding the distribution of contraception materials or information even to married couples. Invoking the “extension” concept from the XIVth Amendment, the question must remain as to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court in intruding on an area obviously not stated in the Constitution. In fact, if the IXth and Xth amendments were adhered to, the federal government, and perforce the Supreme Court, had no jurisdiction in this instance. Do the words mean what they are intended to mean or may we interpret them to our own satisfaction?

It is doubtful the Founding Fathers ever contemplated such verbal elasticity!

That’s my view. What’s yours? Send comments to constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch