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