Most of freedom and of pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears
The intent of the Constitution was to clearly enumerate what the central government was permitted to do. The principle of limited government, which drove the country's founding, was the driving force behind this design. The Tenth Amendment states what can clearly be assumed otherwise--that those powers not enumerated to the Federal government by the Constitution remain with the states and with the people.
Article 1, sections 8 thru 10, enumerate the powers of Congress. Nearly all items apppearing here are clearly limiting in scope. For example, Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the nation, to declare war, to coin money.
This does not mean that violation of these powers is not possible. After all, the three powers listed previously are currently being ignored or abused to some degree. Even the clearest laws are ineffective if people choose to ignore them. But establishing a clear framework is step one if a society is to be ruled by law rather than by men.
There are three items in Section 8, however, that are not clearly limiting in scope. These items are often referred to as the General Welfare clause, the Commerce clause, and the Necessary and Proper clause.
When interpreted outside the founding principle of limited government, these three clauses provide the legal justification for infinite expansion of the Federal government. It should come as no surprise that the lion's share of legislation enacted over the past century that has expanded the Federal government's scope and power has been justified using these clauses.
When interpreted inside the founding principle of limited government, however, these clauses lose much of their significance. How can the principle of limited government be realized if the government can enact any program that it deems 'necessary' under the guise of the General Welfare clause? Or the Commerce clause? Or the Necessary and Proper clause? It surely takes no great mind to reason that the auspices for limited government are poor under such an arrangement.
Indeed, Jefferson and Madison are on the record as putting the clauses in the context of limited government.
The obvious question, of course, is this one: If these three clauses effectively grant unlimited power to the central government, then why bother writing a constitution at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
7 comments:
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
~James Madison
I don't understand why people think that we need to get to the heart of the original intent of the constitution here as the ultimate answer.
I believe it was intentionally vague so that changing circumstances would allow present day people with present day wisdom flexibility to discern the best course of action in light of a very loose framework. Certainly the FFs could not foresee the world we live in today.
No such thing as health insurance in 1776. And at the time slavery was legal and women were considered property. Only white property owning men were allowed to vote.
The framers were not omniscient, they were just as constrained by the morays of their times as the rest of us are.
So you ask why a constitution at all? It's a framework that leaves the rest of us to sort it out in the context of our times.
Intent is important because, as you note, specifics can change w/ the times. The framers surely understood this.
Evidence from the founding period suggests the framers were clearly motivated by underlying principles that, in their view, were meant to endure.
One of those was limited government. This principle is clearly supported even among those who supported the central government model (see the Federalist Papers).
The great debate during the ratification period was whether the Constitution granted too many powers to the central government as written. The Bill of Rights was added to quell some of those concerns, lest many states would not ratify.
The Constitution is not 'vague' in this regard. It enumerates what the central government is allowed to do. Those powers not enumerated go to the states and the people.
This is not a 'loose framework.' It is a limiting framework.
Which is inconvenient to those in favor of more government influence (SIGs).
So what SIGs were influencing the framers?
I'd have to differ with your interpretation too. For example, the phrase in question,
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
is pretty non-specific, ie vague.
For one interesting read in that regard, try:
Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, 1913.
When viewed thru the lens of limited government that pervades the document and the period, then we can conclude that this power is meant to be small and constrained.
Post a Comment