Posted by
David Smith on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:33:34 PM
The Constitution of the United States was not a document of Individual Rights, Civil Rights or Individual Liberties--it was a document of economic opportunity!!
Think about it--the Constitution recognized slavery. Men were allowed to literally own other human beings, and the Constitution recognized this right. Women could not vote, and in certain cases could not engage in commerce equal to men into the latter third of the 20th Century.
As if we didn't need further proof of my opening statement being accurate, why does one need a Bill of Rights...unless the Constitution doesn't protect those rights? The Bill of Rights was added to protect those rights that mattered most to the same men who deliberated the very Constitution itself in Philadelphia in 1787, because the Constitution itself did not.
So why do I bring up such a topic as to state that, as far as the original text of the Constitution goes, it originally recognized slavery? Is it to state that slavery is acceptable and just and right? Is it to discuss that men are superior to women? No. For making such a statement does not stand logically next to the Declaration of Independence or the Bible, both of which I revere.
Let us be absolutely clear on a few points. First, mankind has proven throughout our history that we are fully capable of doing all manner of wicked things to one another. Second, though we have not always lived up to either the dictates that "all men are created equal," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," we have also learned.
Now, sometimes our learning curve involves beating ourselves to a pulp, as in the War Between the States (Civil War, for you Northerners). Just like a child must be disciplined by its parent to learn not to fight with their siblings and not to throw bricks through the windows, it was necessary for our nation to fight amongst itself for four years and kill each other off to settle the matters of Slavery, etc. And the sting of that war lasted, arguably, all the way to the present.
Sometimes, war isn't enough, and we must punish ourselves by abusing each other and must suffer through segregation and suffrage. But in the end, we learn, we change our dispicable ways, and real, genuine change and learning are the result. This was the case with the Civil Rights movement as well as the Women's Suffrage movement. We learned.
But learning comes from making a mistake, and we made the mistake of not eradicating slavery at our outset. We would have been much better off for it from the start, but Southern, slave-holding States did not relent on abolition, making conditions that slavery be preserved as integral to the ratification of the Constitution as the limited nature of the Powers delegated to Congress by the States themselves.
Yet we don't have such a good record of respecting either of these principles.
The study of the Constitution is a fascinating read that must begin with the Declaration of Independence, include the Articles of Confederation, and continue through the Madison Notes and into the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights. And in the contemporary realm, it must continue through the 27th and, currently, last amendment to the Constitution.
The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was, of course, to separate the Colonies from the British crown. It established the loose confederation, or Union, of free and independent States that was later solidified in the Articles of Confederation, which failed due to having no cohesive, national set of standards. Hence the need for the Constitution.
The Madison Notes are the tireless effort of James Madison to record the very deliberations of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. Where the Federalist Papers are Madison's, John Jay's and Alexander Hamilton's effort to explain the intentions of the document ratified in Philadelphia, Mr. Madison's notes were an attempt to record the much broader discussions of exactly what would and what would not be a part of the Constitution.
The result of these notes is an exhaustive explanation of the transition from Articles of Confederation and absolute State control to the delegation of and enumeration of Powers in the Constitution. The Constitution represents not a 'top-down' delegation of which branch at which level controls which Powers, but rather, a 'bottom-up' construction of the national government.
It is, after all, 'E Pluribus Unum,' or 'from many, one,' not 'E Unum Pluribus,' or, weakly translated, 'from one, many.'
Our nation is one. But it is one made up of many. The States were not chartered and set up by the Federal, after all. The States were once Colonies of the British King which in turn traced back to other Kings and monarchs of Europe that chartered settlements in the New World. And once these States earned their freedom and Independence, they set up the national government--not the other way around.
So it is incorrect to say, "The United States Constitution." Its proper title, listed as such in every text book in the nation, is, "The Constitution of the United States." Likewise, "The Congress of the United States," "The President of the United States," and "The Supreme Court of the United States." To reverse these would be disrespectful, grammatically incorrect, and historically wrong.
In the same way, it is wrong to state that the Federal Government has the authority to engage in taking up any matter it so sees fit. This is simply not the case. The Federal Government is delegated authority by those who set it up. This is only logical. For a child does not instruct its parent, the division does not instruct the corporation...and the one does not instruct the many.
It is for this reason that the federal government is absolutely wrong for engaging in the areas not expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. Now, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have been interpreted again and again to grant authority to the Congress and the federal government to engage in a great many areas that, when compared against the text of the Constitution, are not theirs to embark upon.
These include education, retirement planning, healthcare insurance, and income redistribution.
It is for this reason that the government in Washington, D.C. must be made to redact any authority not given to it in the Constitution. For it is far more likely, when examining history, that human leaders are to overstep their authority and powers rather than operate within the boundaries of their powers. It is the same whether those boundaries are national borders or legalities outlined in ink on paper.
Now we hear Washington political hopefuls pledging to award the People spoils which they have not earned and thus do not deserve. The privileged set up the Constitution to award themselves the ability to prosper--not delegate the authority to the federal government to tax them and take from them the property that they have acquired. For the freedom of "the Pursuit of Happiness" actually traces from John Locke's " Pursuit of Property." Thus it is illogical to pledge to rob from the rich and grant to the poor, for that concept is not Constitutional, but British, Robin Hood being of English origin. And we put off the British long ago.
We must recognize the fundamentals of the Constitution and right this sinking ship of state before it is too late. We have been delegated the authority to change, or amend, the Constitution whenever necessary. It is called an amendment, and Article 5 of the Constitution details the process of amending it.
The proper way of going about amending the Constitution is not to ignore 10th Amendment States' Rights and claim authority under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses. The proper way is to amend the Constitution so that, "Congress shall have the Power to regulate (fill in the blank)."
This is what happened with prohibition. Congress did not simply pass a law that banned the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol--it did not have the delegated, enumerated Power to say such a thing. So the Constitution was amended.
But the 18th Amendment was a dismal failure because it did not read, "Congress shall have the Power to regulate the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol." It simply banned alcohol!
So the 21st Amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th and replacing it with Congressional and State regulation of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. And the result has been far superior and far less ineffective.
But Congress simply passed an ordinary law in order to engage in retirement planning (Social Security), healthcare (Medicare), education (Department of Education), and a whole slew of other areas. This is not the Power of Congress...to determine the Powers of Congress. The Powers of Congress are strictly enumerated in the Constitution and are delegated by the States. Therefore, any determination of an expansion of Powers should not take place at the Federal level of government, for it is not given the Power to do so.
And the sooner we realize this the better off we will be.