“The Forgotten 4 Words”

In reading the Preamble to the Constitution, one cannot help but notice the beginning words, “We the People”.  They are the most often quoted three words in the document.  They have been used and abused ever since first penned on paper.

Reflecting on them, it almost seems as if a restriction or a decision was made early on to overlook the 4 words that follow.  This raises the question of whether it was and is intentional or accidental.  Certainly if one considers the continued use of the initial three words, they would support the idea that the country was a democracy since it only references the people, at large and in total.

While there are those who will disagree or take an opposing viewpoint with the following, the fact is that throughout history, the socialists have always used the term “democracy” as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of socialism with a government controlled economy and populace.  One need only read some of the expository treatises on Marxism to realize the truth of that statement.

Yet, the Founding Fathers knew full well what they were putting on paper when they added the four words that follow, “of the United States”.  The significance and understanding of those 4 additional words when added to the other three are critical.  They established the “federal” approach to the formation of a government because the “states” (formerly colonies) were considered sovereign and independent in their own right.  Factually, it was the states that ratified the constitution and put it in operation.  Yes, many of the states had voting procedures for having their citizens vote individually.  BUT, in the final analysis, it was the state voting as a unit or block that actually ratified the document.

Further proof that this was what the founders intended can be realized when one examines the earlier drafts of the document.  At one time, the opening paragraph listed all 13 colonies.  This was considered too cumbersome and awkward as well as difficult from a style standpoint.  However, the decision to add the 4 words we are discussing was the considered judgment probably of Gouveneur Morris who served as the stylist.  According to notes on the drafting of the Constitution, the 4 words were considered satisfactory since they “included” all the existing states and would allow for the addition of new states as the country grew and expanded westward.  This slight change avoided the potential problem they saw of having to re-write the constitution each time a new state was admitted in order to make the opening statement correct.

Now let’s look at the full meaning of the complete phrase, “We the People of the United States”.  Knowing that each state voted separately, thereby agreeing to the terms and conditions of the “contract” (and it was a contract between the states and the new federal government), they did so without relinquishing their rights and independence.  Proof of this point can be found in Amendments IX and X which are parts of the Bill of Rights insisted upon by a number of the parties prior to agreeing to ratify the initial document.  The states were not willing to give any government a “blank check” in terms of power or authority.  Thus, Jefferson’s statement about “binding them down with the chains of a constitution” serves as testimony.

In the future when someone refers to “We the People”, politely remind them of the additional 4 words that actually established in the beginning a federal system instead of a national one.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

Read the fine print . . .

In almost every agreement or contract you can find “small print”.  That’s where they bury the important exceptions or potential modifications to the document that catches the unsuspecting or trusting party.  While there is nothing illegal about the procedure, it is not only annoying, but upsetting to say the least, particularly when some provision it contained turns out to be against what you had understood or thought you were accepting.

That said, one of the major pluses in the writing of the Constitution is that there are no “fine print” parts.  Yet, there are situations contained in the document that might well fall into that category simply because they can be so easily overlooked or disregarded.

For example, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . . ”  (Art. I, Sec. 10).  How many readers are aware of that requirement?  And, how many states are complying with this mandate?  Recognizing that the physical handling of large quantities or gold or silver in whatever form became a burden, the government began the process of printing “certificates” (Gold and Silver Certificates) that were acknowledged and accepted as representing the specific amount of the metal as noted on the face thereof.    

The practice of exchanging such “paper certificates” became widespread until the Federal Reserve was created and began the slow and quiet practice of “modifying” the certificates, eliminating any reference to gold or silver!  Thus the expression “not worth the paper it’s printed on” began to define the Federal Reserve Notes as they are now called.  The “fine print” worked its way while the public was otherwise occupied.

Another example, “The Senators and Representatives . . . and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . .”  Today we have some people openly advocating abandoning the Constitution as the controlling document for our government.   

Rep. Henry Hyde is quoted as telling Rep. Ron Paul in response to Paul’s resolution requesting a formal declaration of war following 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time.  Declaration of war is one of them . . . Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”  Was the oath a “fine print” area to be ignored at will?  Can the President declare war whenever he feels like it?  Such disregard of a sworn oath as well as ignoring the Constitution surely indicates some “fine print” may have been missed in the beginning!

Perhaps the most egregious example of “fine print” that truly affects everyone, is to be found in a document of some 4 million plus words.  It has been said that no one person fully understands

or comprehends it.  Yet it is involved in everyone’s life every day and requires compliance with its dictates regardless of who you are or what business or profession you have.  It can fine you and even imprison you if you fail to respect its regulations or to provide what it demands.  And, it is all perfectly constitutional since it is the result of an amendment.  In case you haven’t already guessed, the “fine print” is that of the Internal Revenue Service (Amendment XVI ratified in 1913).  Until that time, the federal government “lived within its means” and without the “fine print” of the IRS.

We should read the “fine print” always!  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©2013 Hillard W. Welch

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

Always ask the question . . .

The Constitution

A citizen’s view

Always ask the question . . .

When the Founding Fathers created the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution of the United States, they had progressed through innumerable discussions, arguments, proposals and more. They finally settled on the wording for both documents as we have them today.

While many have been critical of the documents from the moment they were signed, the fact remains that both have withstood the test of time.  No other country, bar none, can make such a claim for their governing documents!

Undoubtedly the question, “why” was a common rejoinder to a delegate’s proposal when another  neither understood or appreciated the reason for it.  The result?  A concise, refined document.

Perhaps most important in all this is that the delegates were not seeking personal aggrandizement or power.  They put their talents to defining a document, The Constitution, that would protect the minority from the majority (thus the fact that “democracy” is never mentioned in either document) and that the laws which would flow from the document would be fair and equitable for each and every citizen.

Two outstanding blemishes in their approach were subsequently resolved.  One, unfortunately, by the bloodiest civil war in which the nation has ever been involved.  The other in confirming a woman’s right to equal standing with men.

Once completed and ratified by the individual states, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land.  All subsequent laws as proposed by Congress and signed by the President were to be consistent with the basic principles and provisions of that document.

Which brings us to the point of our sub-heading, “Always ask the question . . .”

That question: “is what is being proposed constitutional?”  If it is not, or is found wanting in any respect making it unconstitutional, it should not be passed or signed into law, no matter how many legislators promoted it.  It is not a question of personal preference.  It is about abiding by the “ground rules” for the operation of our government.  Once that restriction is breeched, there is no end to the usurpation of power and the corruption that can and will result.

To illustrate the point, let’s examine a specific piece of legislation and apply the constraints of the constitution to it.

Foreign Aid.  The US currently gives money each year to some 150 different countries around the globe.  Many, if not all, are antagonistic toward the US.  Despite accepting the funds and with few exceptions, they consistently vote against the US and its position at UN conferences.

Is it constitutional?  A thorough search of the document does not reveal any authorization for such disbursement of tax payer funds.  It would be an enormous stretch to say that the “general welfare” clause authorizes it.  The fact that so many recipients vote against the US position when the opportunity presents itself, is proof enough that it is not in our “general welfare”.

If we review only the past few years, the situation becomes even worse as the US has become a debtor nation without sufficient funds to balance an operating budget.  Thus, the US now literally borrows the money to support Foreign Aid.  In other words, the US now borrows money on which it pays interest to the creditor (probably China) in order to give it away to a collection of countries opposed to our standards, culture and outlook.

Even a present day high school student will acknowledge that this makes no sense at all.

Thus, the question remains: “is it (foreign aid) constitutional”?  The answer is obviously “no” and should therefore be stopped and defunded as rapidly as possible.

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

Our rights come from . . . ?

If you believe as our Founding Fathers did, then you know that you are “endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Declaration of Independence).

If you believe as those who seek more government, then you believe government grants you whatever rights you have.  To paraphrase Jefferson, “whatever government grants, it can also take away!” 

A personal question you might ask: do I want to be free and independent, relying mostly on myself and working for what I want, or do I want to be taken care of all my life?  Not quite as simple as it sounds.  Let’s examine some details and then you can decide.

In one case you are master of yourself, your soul and your life.  In the other, someone else, someone outside of you and probably someone working in a government office, determines all aspects of your life.  Though it goes by many names, it is generally considered some form of socialism.

The distinction we seek is the dramatic difference between two fundamental approaches to life in general and governments in particular.  One is based on freedom, the other on servitude.  While many people living in a socialist state do not necessarily think of themselves as in a condition of servitude, they are probably ignoring the amount of control their government is exercising over even their daily activities. 

The Founding Fathers fought a revolution to establish freedom of the individual as the basis for creating a new nation.  When writing the Constitution, their words restrict the government to a defined set of powers or activities.  Government encroachment on an individual’s freedom would stifle growth and productivity.  Their knowledge of history and other governments told them that individuals develop their maximum potential when left free to do so.  They recognized that the fall of Rome came about when the nation ceased to be under a rule of law and became a “bread and circus” environment in which the mob of people were dependent on the government for their subsistence.  Society broke down and the empire disintegrated.

If the government controls most of the activity, with half the population dependent on the government, then those who voted for it are receiving what they wanted.  The question is whether they consider themselves genuinely better off.  The lure of “something for nothing” ensnares many and they will continue to pursue it until as Margaret Thatcher explained, “the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

It was Winston Churchill who said, “the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

The United States by virtue of its independence and prosperity achieved by the sweat and effort of its citizens has been the most benevolent country in the history of the world.  It has provided more assistance to more people during its history than any other country.  Is it a part of the culture?  Was it taught in our early schools?  Did our forefathers (parents) instill such generosity in their progeny? Perhaps a combination has been the cause.

It would be difficult to name any country that has embraced socialism or government dominance of the country’s economy that has equaled or even come close to providing such assistance.  And, to top it off, the US has done it without expecting something in return.  Perhaps that is because the average American believes the words of the Declaration, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

We return to the question with which we began: do you prefer a government so powerful that it can take care of your every want or do you prefer one with only limited, well-defined powers designed to ensure your rights (from your Creator) so that you can grow on your own?

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