The Word was “NO”!

Probably few readers are aware of the contention that existed at the time that the Constitution was proposed to the colonies (states) for their consideration.  Several, including North Carolina and Rhode Island were withholding ratification, and a Bill of Rights was seen as a way to reconcile the objections of these last two states.  New York and Virginia had already endorsed a call for a second constitutional convention for the express purpose of drafting a bill of rights.

Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, had promised that if the Constitution were adopted, a Bill of Rights would be presented.  Such a collection would address the fears and concerns of many that the original document did not go far enough in specifically stating and thereby protecting what many considered their “God given” rights (the Declaration of Independence was still in full view at the time).

The saying so common in their day that “a man’s word was his bond” proved the integrity and character of the Founding Fathers.  Madison was not alone in his determination to incorporate the Amendments of the Bill of Rights for others took a similar posture believing that they must follow through on their promise.

As an aside, Alexander Hamilton presented his plan on January 9, 1790 to have the new Constitutionally created United States accept the indebtedness which the former states had incurred as a result of the Revolution.  When implemented, this act alone went a long way to establishing the credibility and honor of the fledgling nation among the powers of Europe.
It is interesting to read the first ten amendments to the Constitution, familiarly known as the Bill of Rights.  In doing so, the reader must be struck by the number of “No’s” or variations involved in nine of the 10 articles. 

So, let’s quickly review them:
Amend #1 – Congress shall make no law respecting .. religion  . . . freedom of speech … of the press . . . or the right to assemble peacefully or petition government . . . etc.
Amend #2 – “ . . . the right . . . to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Amend #3 – “No Soldier shall . . be quartered in any house . . . etc.”
Amend #4 – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. . . shall not be violated . . . etc.”
Amend #5 – “No person shall be held to answer for a capital . . crime unless etc. . . “
Amend #6 – Does not contain the word but guarantees a speedy and public trial!
Amend #7 – “ . . . and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined, etc. . . .”
Amend #8 – “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
Amend #9 – “The enumeration . . . shall not be construed to deny etc. . . . “
Amend #10 – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it etc. “

More negatives than anything else should impress the reader with the strength of feelings held by the Founding Fathers and their desire to create a federal government strictly limited by the just ratified Constitution.  This left the larger area under the control and responsibility of the individual states.  Despite the distortion of the structure inflicted by the Civil War, the concept of federalism still pertains to the relationship of the states vis-à-vis the federal government and vice versa.     

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com.
©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch  

A study in contrasts!

This is a comparison of the Constitution of the United States vs. The Communist Manifesto.

1. Property rights
a. Protection guaranteed under the Constitution (Amendment V).
b. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes (1st item of the Manifesto list of provisions).

2. Freedom of speech
a. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press (Amendment I).
b. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state (6th item of the Manifesto list).

3. Taxes
a. Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 8) No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid (Art. I, Sec. 9. Modified by XVIth Amendment authorizing income tax. cf. item “b” following.).
b. A heavy, progressive or graduated income tax (2nd item of Manifesto).

4. Education
a. Not mentioned, referenced or authorized in the Constitution. Only patent and copyright protection are covered in Art. I, Sec. 8.
b. Free education for all children in public schools . . . Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (10th item of Manifesto).

5.Freedom of movement.
a.No restrictions under the Constitution. Citizens of one state have all the privileges of any other state and may travel freely between and within at any time. (Art. IV, Sec. 2).
b.The Manifesto regulates the movement of the citizens to a government plan. Permission to travel is required before embarking on a trip. (6th , 8th and 9th items of Manifesto).

6. Form of government
a. The United States shall guarantee to every State . . . a Republican Form of government . . . (Art. IV, Sec. 4).
b. . . . the first step in the revolution by the working class, is . . . to establish democracy. (Part II of the Manifesto).
Please note, the word “democracy” does not appear anywhere in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The simplest and most basic difference between a democracy and a republic is that a “democracy is the rule of men” (constantly changing as the populace discovers it can vote itself whatever it wants from the public treasury) whereas a “republic is the rule of law” (a known and stable set of rules by which everyone is governed and with which all must comply).


7. Inheritance
a. No mention in the Constitution. Because private property is protected, it was presumed that a person had the right to dispose of it according to their desires.
b. Abolition of all right of inheritance (3rd item of Manifesto).

8. Class distinction
a. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person . . . shall . . . accept . . . any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State. (Art. I. Sec. 9 & 10.). All citizens of the United States are considered equal under the law.
b. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
[Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat] (Part I opening sentence of Manifesto).

Readers can judge for themselves which system is best, which has produced the greatest good for the greatest number and which allows maximum freedom for the individual. I have my view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com.
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch

What the Founders must have known

The writings of the Founders display a far broader knowledge of historical, political, religious, economic and philosophical studies than one can find in any cross section of leaders in America today.

In debating the manner and form of their new nation’s government, they sought freedom, prosperity and peace. To achieve this in a self-governing country required a belief that the individual citizens would be educated to the importance of the task and accept the responsibilities inherent therein.

They saw freedom, specifically freedom for the individual as the overriding purpose of any government. They knew that democracies throughout history had descended into despotic tyrannies with a total loss of individual freedom. Democracies in their eyes exhibited all the weaknesses of the rule of men and their potential for personal power and control. Thus their decision to establish a republic based on the rule of law to which all would submit, rich and poor, knowledgeable and ignorant, farmer or merchant.

Freedom did not mean license to do whatever one pleased. Rather, it meant opportunity to achieve maximum potential for each individual operating within the bounds of rational behavior and with respect for fellow citizens.

To guarantee such freedom, the Founders wrote a Constitution that severely limited the areas of activity and responsibility of the federal government. The powers granted were not aimed at the individual citizen but at the government in general in fulfilling its duty to preserve and protect the freedom and property of every individual. Such protection extended to both domestic and foreign tranquility. Thus, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which limits the federal government to 17 specific areas of activity. The 18th item in the list was to provide Congress with the power to enact laws in fulfillment of the prior 17.

As careful students of the Bible, they had a strong belief in religious principles. They believed in “right and wrong” in their determination of the principles upon which they crafted the Constitution. They knew of corruption but believed it beyond their concern since only truly moral individuals would want to serve in government. They did not consider the possibility of individuals seeking a political career. Rather, that serving in whatever capacity was an honor and only a temporary assignment after which each would return to pursue whatever livelihood they wished or had previously enjoyed.

Having experienced the devastating results of fiat currency during the revolution, they recognized the need for a sound, commodity based currency. To achieve this and prevent the potential of counterfeiting and the destructive aspects of inflation, they decided that gold and silver were the commodities on which the US currency would be based. To make the point as universal as possible, they inserted a clause (Art. I, Sec. 10.), that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . .” Take a moment to reflect on how different our circumstances would be today if we had stuck by the Constitution. This was part of the Founders understanding of how prosperity could be achieved.
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders enumerated the tyrannical acts of a irresponsive monarch whom they considered to be both illegal and opposed to the rights of free men and women.

Consider if you will the following acts among many which were addressed in the Constitution in order to prevent their recurrence under their new government: quartering of soldiers in citizen’s homes during time of peace; rendering the military independent of and superior to the civil power; imposing taxes without citizen’s consent; depriving us (Americans) of trial by jury; and many more stated infractions.

In short, the Constitution was the Founders’ determination to set forth a solid foundation on which government could perform its assigned duties, all of which were essentially done to secure the blessings of freedom, prosperity and peace to themselves and successive generations to come.

That’s my view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch.

The uncivil war . . .

According to one definition, civil means refined, respectful and “civilized”.
The war between the states from 1861 to 1865 was anything but “civil”. In fact, it was the most brutal war in which the United States has ever been involved. More individuals were killed, maimed, blinded or generally incapacitated than in WWII or WWI. The destruction of personal property was beyond imagination as Union troops “scorched the earth” as they marched through various parts of the South.

Civilians were not exempt from the calamities of the conflagration nor were the negroes (or slaves) as Generals Sherman and Sheridan proved how complete they could make the devastation.

To end slavery has always been the promoted purpose of the war! A reasonable reading of the history of that era shows that to be propoganda introduced only after the war was nearing the final surrender of the confederate army. The facts indicate that economics, not slavery, was the underlying cause of the South’s decision to secede. Truth be known, Abraham Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” exempted those states with slavery that remained loyal to the Union. It was only those rebellious states where the slaves were to be freed.

Prior to the war’s start, Congress had imposed a tariff on all goods coming into the ports of the country. The Southern ports suffered more than the Northern ones. South Carolina’s legislature took the initiative, citing the IXth and Xth amendments, and passed a law nullifying the Tariff and refusing therefore to collect it. They claimed the tariff was unconstitutional, if for no other reason than that it was not “equitably applied” as required under the constitution.

Having signed the tariff bill, Abraham Lincoln suspended the “writ of habeas corpus” (a highly questionable interpretation of Art. I, Sec. 9) and authorized the arrest and imprisonment of individuals in the North who openly objected to his policies and prosecution of the war. Such prisoners were held without charge and without any prospect of a trial ( a definite violation of Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights). Hardly the acts of one who respects the Constitution.

According to the history of the times, Lincoln had always been in favor of a strong central government taking the position that the states were created by the federal government rather than the way it actually happened. While this attitude was expressed by others including Daniel Webster, the fact remains that the states were functioning as independent, sovereign organizations prior to the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt to form a government bringing the states together.

The Founders always represented their individual colonies (states).. Each state expressed its own particular point of view. The dichotomy between Jefferson’s concept and Hamilton’s was evident even during the writing of the Constitution. That Jefferson’s prevailed in the final document as ratified did not deter the Hamiltonians from working to change the basic interpretation. Abraham Lincoln achieved the final transformation to “subjugate the states to the will of the federal government”.

Thus, the Civil War was really fought to establish the United States as a nation rather than a federation. The results of this transformation have been evident ever since as the federal government has grown far beyond the bounds established by the Constitution. Much of the transformation has been “allowed” by the courts in “interpreting” the words and clauses rather than “applying them” in evaluating whether the law proposed or enacted was justified and consistent with the intent of the Constitution.

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

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

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

The Constitution A charter for success!

Basic to understanding the meaning of those words is a thorough reading of the twin documents,the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Regardless of how recently you may have read or reviewed them, please do so again – slowly and with thoughtfulness.

The point is that those two documents, charters if you will, provided the framework for building a nation vastly superior in every respect to any that preceded it or has come into being since. Others have copied (or attempted to copy) the U.S. Constitution. Yet, they have failed to appreciate the principles and subtleties incorporated in the various clauses.

Start with the preamble and even though it is not considered an “integral part” of the document, it begins with, “We the people of the United States . . .” It does not say “of America” nor does it name a single entity as the structure. The word States is plural and in one of the original drafts of the document, all 13 colonies were listed. Considered too cumbersome, the present wording was adopted to simplify the statement.

The Founders believed that the best government was that closest to the people themselves and thus they constructed the “nation” as a federation of independent, sovereign colonies (states). By this concept, they saw the means to allow a wide variety of disciplines, attitudes, organizational ideas, etc. to exist without conflict. To ensure that each such state could interact in a reasonable manner with any other state, they included a “commerce” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8).

Keep in mind as you read the Constitution that the Founders believed in individual liberty. Thus words and areas of activity were chosen to preserve maximum liberty for individuals, not groups, associations or any other entity. This should provide you with a greater appreciation for the limits they imposed on the “federal” government and not the states.

Individuals were to be responsible, and accountable, for their own acts. Individuals were expected to do for themselves almost everything and look to the federal government for a minimum number (actually only 17) areas of responsibility. Such an approach meant that any and all individuals were free to pursue whatever occupation or avocation they desired without government interference. Remember that there was no income tax and when first tried was found unconstitutional! That was one more way of ensuring that each individual was entitled to the fruits of his or her labors.

Returning to the document itself, see if you can find any words that permit the federal government to take money from one individual or group of individuals and give it to another or a foreign country!
History has long recorded the fallacy of “attempting to buy friends with money”.

Believing that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the Founders recognized the sovereignty of each state, expecting each one to “take care of its own”. Reliance on the federal government was limited to those 17 duties assigned in Art. I, Sec. 8., each of which was considered beyond the capability or resources of an individual state. Amendments IX and X unequivocally established every state’s sovereignty and retention of the bulk of powers and rights of responsible government.

Liberty and freedom for individuals were the bases on which all powers were to be interpreted. If the government restricted either of them, that was cause for change in that part of the government or declaring the act (or legislation) as unconstitutional.
The question today: are we as free and do we have the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution that our forefathers enjoyed for at least the first 100 years of our republic?
That’s my question. What’s yours? Contact me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch