The U.S. Constitution

That we, as Americans, draw our laws from the Constitution of the United States is rather self-evident. Ours is, after all, a constitutional government, and our society draws its laws from constitutional authority. How then do we reconcile the strident combativeness of the Left in opposition to so many of the laws that “We the People” have conceived to legislate this Great Society? Of more concern, why are they so insistent on creating laws and entirely new entitlements for which there is absolutely no constitutional basis -- such as the current Healthcare boondoggle? Are they somehow unaware of just exactly how a constitutional government works?

The truth is, “we the people” are only guaranteed certain rights by our Constitution, and certain freedoms. Let us review:

We have the freedom of religion.
We have the freedom of speech.
We have the right to bear arms.
We have the right to assemble peaceably.
We have the right to petition the government.
We have the right of due process under the law, legal counsel when charged with crime, a speedy and public trial by jury, and protection from double jeopardy.
We have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is the extent of our rights and freedoms, and there is genius in their simplicity, in their directness, and in their explicitness. Yet in almost any discussion about American liberty or American values many seem to confuse these rights and freedoms with some of the more eloquent prose of the Declaration of Independence, with the soaring rhetoric about “unalienable rights” and “the pursuit of happiness.” As impressive and universally beloved as they are, we must understand that those words, written largely after the fact of the American Revolution – we had already been warring with England for a year – were written to amplify the grievances we held against an oppressive kingdom 3,000 miles away, and were meant in no way to be the basis for a government.

The same folks who choose (out of ignorance or preference) to transfer the war-time feelings expressed in the Declaration of Independence onto the brilliantly forward-thinking Constitution would do well to be reminded of the more salient remarks of one of the chief architects of our government, James Madison, who said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Mr. Madison, a proponent of individual state’s rights and a fierce opponent of a large and over-reaching federal government, went even further to make this most salient of constitutional points, exhorting that “I cannot lay my finger on that Article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” So much for using the General Welfare clause to justify every manner of government handout.
The framers of our Constitution, in designing the outlines of our Republic, understood that their document would need to change and evolve as the country grew and evolved. They knew that expansionism and modernity was inevitable and that our nation would need to be able to address new challenges and opportunities. That is why the Founding Fathers included a mechanism for change: Amendments.

Amendments to the Constitution have been relatively rare, and with few exceptions have been used to address monumental issues that confronted our nation. The 13th Amendment, for example, abolished slavery. The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to tax our income (we actually ratified that one?). The 18th Amendment outlawed “intoxicating liquors,” and the 21st Amendment repealed the prohibition prescribed in the 18th Amendment. All told, there have been 28 Amendments over the last 220 years.

Universal Healthcare is a notion currently in vogue. The liberal asks, “Why can’t we just tax everyone (read: “The Rich”) and have the government provide healthcare or healthcare insurance to every man, woman and child in America? Wouldn’t it be just wonderful if everyone had access to healthcare?”

The problem, here, is two-fold: First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding (or ignorance, if you will) with regard to healthcare. In the United States, it is illegal to deny healthcare to anyone who needs it based upon their ability to pay. If a child shows up at a hospital with a broken arm, it will be set and put in a cast. Who will pay for that service? The insured, in the form of increased insurance premiums.

The second problem is that healthcare is not among the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does it state in the Constitution that American citizens, let alone illegal immigrants, shall be provided healthcare by the U.S. government. Of course, thanks to the foresight of our Founding Fathers, all it would take to make universal healthcare the law of the land is approval by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, followed by the ratification (approval) of three-quarters of the state legislatures.

Amendments are how new, federally-mandated laws are instituted where no previous constitutional authority exists. Of course, individual state legislatures are more than capable of instituting new programs, such as “free” healthcare, and at least one state has done so: Massachusetts. Of course, the citizens of Massachusetts have one of the highest tax burdens in America and their health care still isn’t among the top tier providers, but it is “free.”

The powers of Congress are outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and even the most casual reader will quickly see that Congress does not have, nor did they ever have, the constitutional authority to institute a great many of the Departments that exist today. The Departments of Education, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services are, in fact, entirely unconstitutional. The Commission of Fine Arts is unconstitutional. The Agency for International Development is unconstitutional. The Office of Federal Student Aid is unconstitutional. The National Institute for Mental Health is unconstitutional. The Small Business Administration is unconstitutional. The Multifamily Housing Office is unconstitutional, as are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). And on and on it goes.

If these federally-funded organizations are unconstitutional, how on earth did they ever come into existence and how is it that we continue to fund them, year after year? A broad interpretation of the Constitution, a Congress unwilling to yield to constitutional limits and eager to secure the votes of their constituents, and judicial activism have created a heady brew wherein anything can, and often does, happen.

Some in Congress actually do grasp the limits of their power, but they are few and far between. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Arizona) has introduced a measure in every Congress since 1995, called The Enumerated Powers Act, which would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement that shows the specific constitutional authority that would allow the law to be enacted in the first place. Sadly, the Act has only about 40 co-sponsors in the House, and has never had a co-sponsor in the Senate. We’re talking about men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution but who can not bring themselves to actually do it. What is it they say about “absolute power?”

REFERENCES & ADDITIONAL READING

The Constitution of the United States of America
“The Oxford Guide to United States History” edited by Paul S. Boyer
“Our Nation’s Archive” edited by Erik Bruun & Jay Crosby
“John Adams” by David McCullough
“Benjamin Franklin” by Edmund S. Morgan
“America, the Last Best Hope, Vol. I” by William J. Bennett
“The Nanny-Stater Challenge: Where’s Your Constitutional Basis?” by Jerry Agar, Jan 2008
“The Great Upheaval” by Jay Winik
“”Who’s ‘Right’?” by Neal Boortz, April 7th, 2008
“Political Loathsomeness” by Walter E. Williams, April 9th, 2008
“American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson” by Joseph J. Ellis
“James Madison” by Garry Willis