More on – Is it constitutional?

Have you ever stopped to think about the monies that the federal government “gives” to the states and municipalities?  Where does the federal government get the money in the first place?  And, finally, have you ever thought about the fact that federal government monies are disbursed with restrictions attached?

Put that all together, and you realize that it was your money the federal government took in the first place through taxes, fees and other means and which they are now “giving back” to you in the form of a subsidy or some other euphemistic term to conceal the real purpose.  In short, all such government monies are disbursed with directions to the recipient as to how they should be employed.  Yet, it was your money to begin with.  And now, they are “giving” back some portion of it with rules on how to spend it, having taken a cut along the way.

The federal government is “bribing you with your own money” to do what they, the politicians want.  And, there is no clause or section of the Constitution or its Amendments that authorizes such action on the part of the federal government.  Coercing the states to do the politicians’ bidding was fortified by the idea, “if you don’t [do as we request], we will.”  That is simply semantic legerdemain!

In fact, truth be known, it is a direct violation of the federal concept of government.  The federal government has, according to the Constitution, certain defined limits of activity and involvement.  All else is left to the states, each of which was considered in the beginning to be sovereign in its own right.  While a state’s areas of involvement and governance were not defined, they must not encroach on those few which were specifically relegated to the federal government.

Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) allegedly commented, “if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit an action, then I can do it”.  (See IXth and Xth Amendements which reserve to the states and/or the people all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.) This on the very face of it is an absolute attempt to avoid the restraints enacted by the Founding Fathers in establishing the Constitution.  Inserting words that do not exist does not justify the action contingent thereon.  Even before Theodore Roosevelt “bent” or “distorted” the original meaning, we encountered such a situation with Thomas Jefferson and the excerpt from his letter concerning the “wall of separation” between church and state.  Neither of these attempts at “stretching” the Constitution can be justified when the actual wording of the document is considered.

One need only remember that the Founding Fathers did not create a document to favor any individual, group, caste or association.  Whether you agree or disagree, you must accept the fact that they dealt as much as possible with what would be considered “basic principles” in much the same way that “gravity” is a basic principle.  That is why they sought to limit the federal government to specific, defined areas of responsibility and accountability.  Each of the three branches was expected to abide by such restrictions or directions as the Constitution delineated.  No more, no less!

Ever since the beginning of the 20^th century we have witnessed a progressive onslaught to undermine and change the meaning, purpose and activities of the federal government.  Such distortions have transformed us into a country in which the people are servants of the government, not the government the servant of the people.

And that is why it is even more important today to always ask your government officials, “is it Constitutional”?

Think about it.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?   

Reach me at constitutionviews@ gmail.com  ©Copyright 2012.  Hillard W. Welch