On the U.S. Constitutional Crisis
Perhaps some of you are familiar with the infamous phrase "To each according to their needs, from each according to his ability". In a recent survey, a variety of college students were asked where this historical phrase came from. 38% believed it came from the US Constitution, when in fact, my friends, this is a mantra from Marx's "Communist Manifesto".
This bit of information has reminded me of the constitutional crisis that has been underway in the United States for quite some time. What I mean by this is that the Constitution has become irrelevant in modern US politics. How many times has the word Constitution even been mentioned in the current race for the presidency? If you don't count candidate Alan Keyes, that number would be practically zero. In fact, the same goes for mentions of the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, and the ideas contained therein.
The constitution has become little more than a speed bump, a inconvenient barrier that can sometimes be disregarded if public opinion be great enough. The US federal government has taken up the business of providing medical care, welfare, and retirement benefits for a number of americans, and established regulations in thousands of areas, from setting a minimum wage to regulating how much water we can have in our toilets.
To my knowledge, all of this is supposedly covered in Article I, section 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The key words in this clause are "general welfare", which are interpreted today in a way that gives the federal government unlimited authority, for who is to say what is and isn't for the general welfare? Using this loophole, the powers of the federal government appear limitless, so long as the bill of rights are not violated.
But while the exact letter of the constitution may not be violated, what worries me is the absolute disregard for the spirit of the constitution, and the ideals that led to the founding of America.
I do not know how many of you out there are familiar with the Federalist Papers. In short, the Federalist papers were a series of 84 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay with the purpose of convincing the public that the Constitution should be adopted. These essays were meant to placate fears that the federal government may one day overstep its powers and intrude on the liberty of the citizens. In any case, the Federalist papers are good reference to ascertain what the constitution was meant for and what sort of government was intended.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison gives us a good idea of just how much power the constitution was supposed to grant to the federal government: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. "
Madison clearly states that the powers delegated to the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined", principally on external issues such as "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce". This is a far cry from the "general welfare" interpretation of today, whereby the federal government seems to have nearly limitless power in nearly limitless areas, restricted only by the bill of rights. Madison and constitutional supporters of the day believed that the powers were few enough and defined enough to make any overstep almost inconceivable.
So thank goodness, then, that we have the bill of rights. However, the original constitution was written without a bill of rights, and it may surprise you that many people argued against the inclusion of these 10 amendments.
In Federalist 84, Hamilton writes: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not
only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. "Here, Hamilton is saying that by spelling out a few rights in a so called "bill of rights", everything else is apparently left as fair game. He warns that such a document may be dangerous because it could imply that the federal government has the power to do anything not violating those rights.
In retrospect, it is a godsend that a bill of rights was added eventually, for I fear where we would be without it. But that begs the question of how Hamilton could have been so naive to actually argue against a bill of rights. However, it doesn't seem so odd when you take into account the way rights and liberty were viewed at the time. Rights were seen as unalienable, as a fundamental part of human existence. Liberty was also seen as something fundamental and inherently obvious. So why bother trying to express rights and liberty in a document when it is already so obvious and ingrained in the people? Surely the listing of rights is redundant at best, and at worst could give the government carte blanche over everything not explicitly stated. The only naive thing about Hamilton's thinking was that the concepts of rights and liberty would always be so ingrained in the people.
Now that the government has such broad powers, many other problems come into play. While those rights covered in the bill of rights are protected, everything else is in fact, fair game. It has come to pass that in fact we have no rights or liberty beyond those protected in the bill of rights. The whole concept of liberty, of being allowed to do that which harms no one else, has been totally lost. I believe most people have forgotten that liberty was a founding principle of this nation, despite that the word is staring them in the face whenever they hold change in their hand.
What the survey tells me is that there is a serious lack of knowledge about the history behind the founding of this nation and what this nation was to stand for. And this lack of knowledge occurs at the higher education level, not to mention among those who have not received a secondary education. And yet, even while this lack of understanding exists, we will all be out there come July 4th, waving our flags and praising the american revolution; praising the virtues of freedom and liberty.
While already existent in state legislatures, the american revolution did bring us a government based on the principles of democracy, in that the occupants of the executive and legislative branch are elected by the people. Today, this is perhaps the most trumpeted accomplishment of the revolution. But, what of the concepts of freedom and liberty? Of a minimalist government and the freedom of people to live without government intrusion and tyranny? In fact, our American "Freedom" is now summed up solely by our democratic institutions and the freedoms of the bill of rights.
At this very moment, some people are considering laws which would dictate what days you can and can not drive your car. While this law has little chance of being passed, the debate on new legislation is always whether or not such laws should be adopted, rather than debating if the government has the authority to do so. It goes to show that, when it comes down to it, the government does in fact have limitless power to create law over anything and everything, the only exceptions being the few things mentioned in the bill of rights.
We are in a constitutional crisis because no one seems to remember what this nation was founded for. People seem to want a huge state, full of socialist programs to take care of them, while the average american will pay 40% of his income in taxes, while the most productive will pay far more..The US government was formed by the people to ensure the "pursuit of happiness" (originally written as "pursuit of property") by ensuring Liberty. By setting people free from governmental control and taxation, we would be free to make this pursuit. But now, it seems that this phrase has been re-written. It is as if this phrase has been shortened to "ensure happiness", that the government exists to ensure happiness through wealth distribution and the implementation of socialist programs.
In conclusion, my fear aroused by this survey concerns the general lack of knowledge and understanding about the constitution and what this nation was founded for. The fact that 38% of college students could confuse a key idea from the communist manifesto with the constitution goes to show the depth that socialism and socialist ideals have penetrated our society. I have no idea whether people have simply forgotten the US's original ideals or if people have rejected them for the ideals of a socialist-democracy.
If the majority of us still believe in the ideals of the American Revolution, then let us remember and take to the streets next July 4th, fully knowing what the day stands for. On the other hand, if we have reached a point where the majority of us rejects these ideals, then let us stay home and have the decency to rename this country something more appropriate, perhaps "The Socialist States of America".