Our Precious Constitution

by Tim Shaw (Pennsylvania)

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

James Madison 

THE KEY TO REFORM

If the Constitution does not mean what it says, then we have no Constitution. If the Constitution cannot be understood, cannot be interpreted but by the Courts, then we are subject to the document changing day by day, year by year, at the whim of the latest Court decision. If it is outmoded, or a return to the "horse and buggy days", as President Roosevelt once called it when his New Deal laws were declared unconstitutional, then we have lost sight of its entire purpose. Though times and circumstances may change, though new discoveries and revelations may be made, the basic principles founded in the U.S. Constitution have not, and nor has human nature. Jefferson advised us in matters of power "let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution!" Those chains are secured firmly in place today, we only have to use them.

There will never be any true "reform" absent that precious document. The rallying cry has always been, "Lets us make America strong again, let us make her what she once was." Well, what was she once? What made this nation so much better then all others? That answer is simple. It lies in our freedom which is guaranteed solely under one precious document, the US Constitution. Ignoring it’s words has cost us greatly. Together we must restore them to their rightful place in our government. Enforcing the Constitution is the key to reform.

13 GOVERNMENTS UNITED IN REBELLION

During the Rebellion the colonies found themselves with quite a little problem. They were winning our freedom against the King, but they had also abolished the only government they had ever known. For this reason, after the Declaration of Independence had been written, the States had set about writing their own constitutions. We now needed to unite the States. There was talk of a democracy, talk of electing a "king" for our new nation, but others had something completely different in mind. A Republic. A nation where the people rule and the government is limited ... held together by the letter of the law. The Founders taught us that the only purpose of government was to protect our God-given Rights ... nothing more. It was not to be involved in our daily lives and should have only the powers that the states themselves could not adequately provide for the people. They set out to build that Republic and it stands to this day. But is was not first without trial and error ....

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

To this day we all remember the words "Taxation without representation". They are a distant reminder of tyranny, all too familiar today. The States, each protective of their freedoms of which they had just secured, were wary of giving power over to a any federal government that would just as quickly take them away. They were insistent that the federal government have no power to tax from the start. Meeting in late fall of 1777, the Second Continental Congress decided upon our new government. Called the "Articles of Confederation," it was formulated by November 15, 1777 and adopted July 9, 1778. We won our freedom under that government, but it was painfully obvious quite soon that the Articles were too weak. They limited the federal government so much that it was completely ineffective. Washington’s troops went without guns and ammunition and fought barefoot in the snow because of it--and after the War of Independence, this flaw manifested itself in more ways than one.

The Articles of Confederation so limited the federal government that it had no power to collect taxes, so therefore no power to raise money. It had no way of stopping trade wars between the states and therefore no way of stopping states from imposing tariffs on one another. There were excise taxes, import-export duties, hauled interstate commerce, and others which caused strife and chaos. Some instances almost led to civil war between states. The States needed these tariffs as they had no other source of revenue. The Federal government could only "request" money of the states, but had no power to collect. They could levy the taxes against the states or individual, but could not enforce such a levy if the states refused to pay. The States did often refuse to pay and this resulted in a military that could not protect the people. Congress did virtually nothing for 4 years. The new nation was now united under a confederation, but would soon lose it’s united bond unless something was done. The Confederation seemed to be heading for 13 separate nations. In Springfield, Massachusetts, a famous tax revolt known as "Shay’s Rebellion" took place where over 2,000 armed insurgents blockaded the Springfield Courthouse. They were dispensed with a few cannon volley’s but a lesson was learned. The states each on their own as such, would have great difficulty in protecting their individual freedoms. In order to protect those state rights each were so protective of, unity was needed. Joint protection for the better of them all. The Articles were too weak to do this and a revision would have to be made. In order to accomplish this, each state sent delegates to Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention. Their mission: amend the Articles of Confederation.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The Convention was to start on May 14, 1787. This day was set aside for the deputies to meet, but by that date only a small number had arrived. Seven states were not in attendance until May 25th. The Virginia delegation arrived on May 14th however, and consisted of George Washington, Edmund Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, George Wythe and James McClurg. They met a few hours each day until the other states arrived to formulate their plan to propose when the convention finally began. Together during those days they wrote "The Virginia Plan." On the 25th of May, George Washington was chose by unanimous vote, the presiding officer. The next few days the delegates spent electing officers, appointing committees, and establishing rules of procedure.

On May 29th, 1787 Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan to the delegations as the Convention opened for main business. The first resolve of the Virginia Plan was "That the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects by their institution; namely "common defense, security of liberty and the general welfare." After his presentation that day the Convention adjourned, but the following morning a controversy erupted. Some of the delegates wanted to know what the term "general" meant when referring to welfare. Could this be construed to mean anything the government wanted? Others such as Charles Pickney of South Carolina, wished to know if Mr. Randolph "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." Most, however agreed that the Plan was correct in principle. Randolph explained how just as "common defense" meant protection the United States against a foreign enemy, "general welfare" meant defending the states against "domestic violence beyond their control, maintaining peace and harmony among them, and preventing state laws and restrictions from inhabiting citizens of their liberty to trade and travel freely throughout the nation." The delegates agreed and understood. But ... they wanted careful wording of these specific powers so that the federal government could not expand on these words "common defense" and "general welfare". The goal had been set, provide a government that could keep the states in line and working together, while defending them from enemies. Now they had to limit that government so that it could not enlarge on those simple powers.

CHECKS AND BALANCES!

As the Founders debated this problem of listing "specific powers" for the federal government, important questions were asked. "Was it practical to set these powers in stone for all times and all generations?" Times were bound to change and in time those specific powers could prove to be a hinder to of freedoms. "How can we list them but keep them flexible at the same time?" They solved this with a beautiful system of checks and balances that is so unique, so well thought out, and so amazing, that only divine providence can be held responsible for their invention. And to this the Founders gladly admitted it’s right.

NO LIMITED GOVERNMENT WITHOUT STATE RIGHTS

The flexible powers ... those that would change in the course of time ... would be left to the states. Here they could stretch to meet the needs of the people. Now, what if some states would abuse the people, take their rights? Well, they were permitted to do so. It was doubtless that some states would make this mistake, whether intentional or by accident. The Founders knew that such "trail and error" was far better an act to be attempted by the States than the federal government. The new government however, would guarantee the people power to travel freely, from state to state. Therefore, if New Jersey were to take ones rights, for example, one could move to Maryland. This kept the states in competition with each other. Would they end up going so far as taking Rights? Most likely not for a very long time. All states had superb constitutions that protected the Rights of the people and of which they were very proud. In time it could happen though. The Founders looked ahead and saw that it was better to have one state oppress its people with these "flexible powers in times of change" than have the entire federal government oppress the whole nation with new regulations and law. States would also want to keep tax revenue at home, so such oppression would be unwise. The whole state might up and move! Now, one could say, "Yes, but what if every state would oppress the people?" Would you rather the "flexible powers" given to the federal government? Because if you would, and the federal government oppresses ... you cannot move to another state. All states would be subject to that law and there would be no escape. Sadly, that is where we are today. State Rights, such as these have been smashed. Most of us cannot even remember our state legislators much less quote our state constitutions. America today is one big state with the federal government making law as a state. This is why we have federal air bag regulations, food regulations, and so on. The Founders intended the States ... not the federal government to make laws and regulations such as these. We are quickly heading for a collective, centralized government. We must return our state rights to the people and restore this balance of power!

A KING, A LAWMAKER, A JUDGE

With the flexible powers now given to the States, the time had come to create the "specific powers". These would be reserved for the Federal Government. As they debated the dilemma of State infighting and the lack of power to defend themselves, they realized that the Articles would need an entire overhaul. They also realized that the powers needed for the "specific" category would be much too dangerous in the hands on one leader or one body. They would have to be broken down somehow. But just how and in what manner was the question. They solved this problem with inspiration that actually came from a Bible verse. Isaiah 34:22 reads, "For the Lord is our judge, The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us". With this simple sentence they found the solution to the problem: The Executive. Legislative, and Judicial branches. A king, a lawmaker, and a judge. Three in one and one in three.

A HOUSE FOR THE PEOPLE, A SENATE FOR THE STATES

Another problem facing the Founders at this time was giving states equal power and say in their new nation. Some states were industrial, others agricultural. Some had great populations such as New York, but others were smaller such as Rhode Island. They were under great pressure to ensure each state received the equal representation they deserved. Larger states wanted to see the legislature elected by population. This however would result with the smaller states left in the minority every time. The smaller states wanted to see the legislature elected with the same equal delegation policy, that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The flaw of this however was that there were more smaller states than larger states. The result would be smaller states with only a few people setting national law for the majority. How could the Founders protect both small states and large states, and thus give them equal representation in the Congress? The answer again was in checks and balances.

The strongest branch would be the "Legislative." It would be divided into two chambers. One chamber would be called the "House of Representatives". This would be the strongest of the two. Members of this chamber would be elected by the people who would be qualified to vote in their respective states. The number of members in the House would be in proportion to the number of people in the respective state. This would ensure that the large states would have equal representation for all of their people. The House was to be the "chamber of the people". It was elected by them and according to their number.

The second chamber would be called the "Senate" and was to represent the States at the federal level. This was so that each State could have equal representation in the Congress. The Senate would consist of 2 members from each state and would therefor give the smaller states their equal say. The Senate would be chosen by the state legislatures of the people back home. This system therefore gave both smaller states and larger states equal representation, at the same time giving both the people and the States a voice in Congress. One chamber would speak for the people, the other would speak for the State. The States, remember, were very jealous of their individual Rights. They did not want to see their state constitutions become null and void. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution did just this, because it took from the States their voice in Washington. We now can elect a CEO or a lawyer off the street as a Senator, someone who is not a member of the state legislature. This important check must be returned to restore a voice for our States in Washington.

The two chambers were each given specific powers. Each would be in competition with the other, and would need to work with the other in order to get a bill passed or anything done. This kept one chamber from expanding on its powers and is a beautiful system of checks and balances. Together they made law, but each had powers the other did not. The House would control the purse, and no funding would come unless they gave their approval . The Senate could ratify treaties and so on. Both would have to work together in order to get anything done. This rivalry was created on purpose because the Founders wanted them to keep each other in check. Nothing could happen unless the "House of the people" and the "Senate of the States" (large and small) approved.

THE FOUNDERS DID NOT "HAIL THE CHIEF"

The Executive Branch would consist of a "President". He would have many important duties such as negotiating treaties and the ability to veto a bill from the Congress. He served as a buffer for a Congress that might try to expand on their powers together as a collective group. If this were to happen, the President could halt their motive and send the bill back. It would require a 2/3rds vote to override his veto. The President would not be elected by the people. He would be elected by the state legislatures under the "Electoral College." This system worked as follows: Each state would set a number of "electors" equal to their number of both Senators and Representatives. Those electors would be appointed by the state legislatures. They could pick them anyway they chose. The Electors would each cast a vote for President and Vice-President. They would not even have to travel out of state. The winner of this vote would be President. Today, this is unthinkable. But not then. The Founders did not envision a leader who walks down a red carpet while "Hail to the Chief" is played. They did not envision huge presidential elections on TV. A leader who makes "Executive orders" or is idolized as a new king of "Camelot". All they intended was for him to be the guy who answers the phone at the White House. We have so glorified the office today however, that we truly have made a King. It was said that Americans used to be able to walk right up to the White House and speak with the President, much like we can with our congressman today. Hard to imagine? Imagine a branch of Federal Government that has grown far past anything our Founders intended, because that is the reality.

A COURT TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION

The third branch would be the "Judicial" and consist of the Supreme Court. It’s power would be to try cases with Ambassadors, or other public Ministers and Consuls., cases where States represent one of the parties, as well as hear disputes from appeals in lower courts. The Court would be subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". This would keep the Court in line. The Court was to remind the other two branches of the "intent of the lawgiver is the law", that the proper interpretation of the Constitution is what the Founders meant ... and not what they decide it means. If we are never sure what the Constitution means, than we can claim a different meaning for whatever we are trying to ram though Congress. The Judicial branch was to look to the words of the Founders (the Federalist Papers, the notes on the Convention, etc.) and give the original definition. If the Court was to find that another branch was doing something unconstitutional, the only thing it could do was say so. The Supreme Court cannot make law ... and therefor cannot veto or overturn law. Only the Legislative or Executive can do that. One example of this was the comment made by President Andrew Jackson " ... the Chief Justice has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it!" prior to the Trail of Tears. It would be up to the public to demand repeal of a unconstitutional bill. Today, thanks to the 14th amendment, the courts can overturn any law on the state level they deem as unfair. Therefor a law passed by the people can be overturned by a judge. This is Judicial activism. Courts do not make law. The Congress makes law. They have absolutely no right to tell Americans they cannot smoke in a McDonalds, pray in school, or place a nativity scene in City Hall. State Rights have been smashed by the 14th Amendment’s "Equal Protection" clause, giving huge power to a branch that was intended to be the weakest by our Founders. Does the Supreme Court today look to the words of the Founders for inspiration? Very seldom. They look to the words of past justices most often and have failed in their duty to uphold the US Constitution.

THE BALANCE OF POWERS

As we have seen, the Founders gave us a beautiful system of checks and balances. States would have flexible law. This would keep them in check with each other. State vs. State. The Federal Government would have specific powers, this would keep it in check with the States. Federal vs. State. The Federal government would be made of three branches ... each keeping the other in line. Legislative vs. Executive vs. Judicial. The Legislative would furthermore be made of two chambers, each keeping the other in check. House vs. Senate. The ultimate check however would be reserved for the people alone. If the people would cease their careful watch of the government, no number of checks and balances would matter in the end.

GENERAL WELFARE, DEFENSE, TAXATION, AND THE PEOPLE

What did the Founders do to solve the problem of state infighting and lack of defense? Remember the tariffs, duties, and stuff caused by them? This system again was almost flawless. Our new tax system would consist of two forms of taxation. The "Indirect Tax" would be the main tax and would be the tariff, user fee, import/export duty. The Indirect Tax was to pay for our national budget. The second form would be the "Direct Tax" and be a tax on the person. This was to be used only in time of emergency and it’s simplistic form laid the groundwork for the American Dream. Here is how it worked. The Congress would pass the Direct Tax in the form of a revenue act. It would be passed to the states and the states would have to pay the debt equally by proportion to population. (Larger states had more people, thus a higher share.) The States were permitted to raise the money any way they chose. The Federal government had no say in this matter at all. After the states paid their share, the Direct Tax went out of existence. Americans were left free and able to keep the fruits of their gain ... and worked harder because of it. The first time a Direct Tax was used was in 1798, to pay for the debt of the Revolutionary War. The Congress passed the revenue act and it amounted to around $2 million. Each State was given their share in proportion to population. Here in Pennsylvania, our share came to over $273,000. We each paid it in full and were debt free. The tax went out of existence until the War of 1812, and we were free to keep the profit we raised. Sadly, this perfect system was destroyed by the 16th Amendment, which gave the Federal government power to tax our incomes. Once that was done, they no longer needed tariffs to generate the proper income. End result? Wasted spending and a 6 trillion dollar debt. NAFTA and GATT which deplete the tariffs over time. This forces the national budget on the income tax of all Americans. The 16th Amendment should be abolished and we should return to the original system under the US Constitution.

States were permitted to tax anyway they chose within their states, but were forbidden to charge tariffs to a fellow state. The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution reads "congress shall have power too ... regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." In a nutshell, it means that state governments must not interfere with commerce outside of their boundaries ... and the Federal government must see that they do not. It does not give the federal government power to decide the manner of trade ... it simply makes it an overseer. James Madison put it like this: "The power to regulate commerce among the states was not bestowed upon the national government to be used for positive purposes, but only as a negative and preventive provision among the states themselves."

The money raised by with the Indirect or Direct tax financed our military. States would now be protected. Our system of taxation would now put an end to the state infighting by raising the money needed ... and enforcing the Interstate Commerce Clause would end the strife.

A BILL OF RIGHTS

The stage had been set and the Constitution was ready. There was just one thing lacking now, a Bill of Rights, to further prohibit the Federal government from EVER growing in power. A final word to keep it even more limited. George Mason, so wanted this provision, that he said he would rather cut off his right hand than support a constitution that did not contain a Bill of Rights. George Washington suggested letting the new Constitution go to the States and the people for ratification, and letting the Bill of Rights be added as amendments later in time.

On September 30, 1789, almost two years later Washington reminded the new Congress of that promise during his inaugural address ... "To quiet the apprehensions of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to posses the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed as unalienable" James Madison proposed 17 resolutions. Congress rejected five and sent 12 to the States for a vote on amendment. Of the 12, ten of them were ratified by the states and became our "Bill of Rights". Throughout the Bill of Rights, there is one common theme ... again and again it says "Congress shall make no law". These were limits on the Federal Government ... NOT state governments. The Bill of Rights even has a preamble which almost always is left off when we see a reprint. It states that the purpose of these amendments is for "further declaratory and restrictive powers" of the federal government. It was here that our Rights to religion, press, speech, arms, trial, protest, and property, are guaranteed. The 10th amendment ending this masterpiece ends us off with saying "And oh yeah, if we forgot anything --it's reserved to the states or to the people".

Simply Amazing!

AMERICA A REPUBLIC ... NOT A DEMOCRACY

What the Founders had created was a "Republic". A government of laws. Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT a democracy. Our Founding Fathers often spoke out harshly against democracy. The democracies of Greece often ended up in the leaders promising the people rewards from the treasury in order to get re-elected as Ross Perot has often said. A Democracy is mob rule. A Republic is rule by law ... the US Constitution. One example would be this: suppose you have five people in a room (three men and two ladies) The men take a vote and say "Let’s rob the women." THAT is democracy in action. Suppose you have 51 Senators in a room that say "Let’s vote for NAFTA". That too is democracy in action. Is this the sort of lawmaking we want? Of course not. Since we have law, and the Constitution would prohibit them from voting for NAFTA, they cannot do so legally ... even if 100 would cast their vote in favor. This protects both the majority and the minority from "impulse voting" Today we hear the word "democracy" all the time. We hear the world "global economy" all the time. As we hear these things, our elected servants vote day by day for all sorts of regulations, bills, and law while we sit back and cry that the vote passed. Even if the vote passed, this is not a democracy. They cannot simply pass anything they want just because they received the correct amount of votes. The law must be enforced, we must demand they follow the US Constitution. Do we ever hear them speak of a "Republic"? Of course not, because that would mean a sovereign nation without a NAFTA, GATT, or a UN.

RESTORING OUR REPUBLIC

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, an elderly woman asked Ben Franklin, "what have you wrought?" He answered "A Republic ... if you can keep it". And so it is up to us. In order to preserve our God-given Rights, we must be willing to defend them. Our fore-fathers bled and died so that we could be free. It is not at that point yet for us. We can make this nation strong again by returning to the greatest government even known to man, the US Constitution. As Thomas Edison once said "The strength of the Constitution lies in the will of the people to defend it". We must be willing to take our country, our states, and our lives back from the federal government. Read your Constitution, think for yourself, question authority, and most importantly, never forget that you are to be the master of your government.