“Sometimes people don’t want to
hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Once again I have been reminded that
September 17th was Constitution Day, the federal observance of the ratification
of that power giving political document. How unwarranted to honor this piece of
parchment that was used to vastly increase federal power. In fact, it was
prepared in complete secrecy behind locked doors, with armed guards for
security during the process. Given that the members of the constitutional
convention were drafting what is now referred to as the “law of the land,” a
completely new governing system, the total secrecy and reasons given for that
secrecy have never proved valid in my opinion. In addition, the claim that this
document protected liberty, while at the same time politicians plotted in secret
to overthrow the current system for one of their choosing, one that created a
much more powerful central federal system, is a contradiction impossible to
ignore.
It is no secret that I do not worship the Constitution as so many seem
to do. Most hold it sacred, and a few hold it in contempt. I am in the latter
camp. When I take a pragmatic approach in analyzing this loose set of rules
constructed by a small group of politicians, I find holes that are difficult if
not impossible to repair. This leads me to understand that there is more to
this document than meets the eye. In other words, it is not something to be
sanctified; it deserves much scrutiny. This is the opposite approach from the
norm, but one that allows open investigation of those who drafted it and their
true motives, instead of shrouding them under a protective halo.
Can
anyone even imagine today a few politicians on their own and in secret,
Democrats or Republicans, or any combination of the two, overhauling the
government, creating a new set of rules replacing the current government, and
drafting those rules by secret ballot?
“If
only we could get back to the Constitution.” I have heard this phrase uttered
an untold number of times, but what does it mean? It means nothing to me, for
it is not a worthwhile argument or for that matter, any argument at all. It
places reverence on a political document, and any thinking person should be
able to understand that if the protection of individual rights is due to a
constitution drafted by politicians, then he has no rights at all.
Politicians,
legal scholars, professors, academics, and any number of others are fond of
claiming that the U.S. Constitution severely limits government, and protects
the individual from tyranny. They claim that all federal powers are explicitly
limited due to the written restrictions contained in that “founding” document.
This is simply not true. Where are these so-called restrictions? There
are none as far as I see in Article 1, Section 8, and this is the one article
that outlines all the powers of Congress. In part, it authorizes the power to
tax, to provide for the common defense, to provide for general welfare, to
borrow money at will, to regulate all commerce, to coin (control) money, among
many other powers. In addition, the final power authorized in the powers
clauses allows government to make any laws necessary for carrying out these
powers. Reading this section of the Constitution, regardless of the rest of
this document, and believing that government power is restricted is an exercise
in futility. The government certainly has never viewed its power as restricted,
and for good reason.
There are those who choose to
defend the Constitution by isolating the different powers mentioned, especially
by using what the Founders said in non-binding papers, private letters, and
after its drafting to support their argument. This is usually a defense based
upon the “intent” of the signers. This is not only an empty argument, but is an
impossible claim. Pretending to understand the intent of a politician in the 18th century
is ludicrous when considering how written law should be interpreted. Even if
particular individuals responsible for drafting the Constitution spoke out
later to clarify what they actually meant, how is this useful given that the
document had already been implemented and made law with only the original
language evident?
One
example worth mentioning is the continual argument about the general welfare
clause. This was mentioned twice in the body of the Constitution. The first was
in the preamble, which is irrelevant, due to the fact that no power was given,
and could not be given in that section of the Constitution. But it was
mentioned again in the powers given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. There,
explicit power was given for Congress to provide for the general welfare.
Because nothing specific is outlined concerning this power, no restriction is
evident. That is why Congress from the very beginning, due to this non-specific
language, abused its power concerning the general welfare clause.
Yes, Madison and others
claimed that the general welfare provision in the Constitution was never meant
to be an unlimited power for spending or for any number of other abuses by
Congress. Do his words mean anything given that the language granting those
powers was never changed? Why were all the powers given in Article 1 of the
Constitution so broad in nature in the first place if they were intended to be
restrictive? Open-ended language granting power to government is never able to
restrict, it is only an allowance for abuse. Whether accidental or by design,
it has been a nightmare, and if the original language was unclear, why has it
never been amended?
Due
to the language used in Article 1, Section 8, it is much more evident that this
spending can be justified more easily than it cannot. Words mean things, and
the words in the Constitution, especially in the powers clauses, are not meant
to restrict, but to allow for unlimited interpretation. The drafters of the
Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds of the time, but those
defending the Constitution and its framers must assume they were idiots. Why
would they allow such loose language, language that obviously would be
misconstrued and abused? If they wanted to put into law clear restrictions on
government, why would they be so careless by not being specific in their
demands? Why would they leave open to doubt the powers of government if liberty
is what they sought?
If
freedom and liberty are to be evident in this society, government must be held
down. No constitution can save us, nor can it provide liberty for the
individual. No constitution written by politicians should be revered. It should
instead be shunned. The enemy of freedom is government, and if any government
is to exist, it should have only one mission and only enough power to protect
that singular mission. That is to protect the natural rights of the individual,
nothing more. Consider these words of wisdom by Ludwig von Mises:
“Government is in the last
resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison
guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of
its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more
government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less
freedom.”
No
truer words have ever been spoken. The only way to have government by the
people is to have little or no government at all.
Gary D.
Barnett [send
him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in
Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.
Previous
article by Gary D. Barnett: Lies Cannot Hide the Dark Side of
Reality