Jul 23, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, because he may have once opposed Roe V. Wade on abortion, is not likely to be as threatening as portrayed by our Democratic Party medias.
In the first place justices are only allowed to choose from what is brought before them, cases having survived tedious, time-consuming and expensive lower court scrutiny. So if Justice Kavanaugh wanted to reverse Roe V. Wade he would have to wait for a case that would allow that. Theoretically that could take a lifetime—if at all.
Should Congress pass a law that all nine justices personally believed to be unconstitutional they possess no power collectively or individually to themselves bring it before the high court for review. There exists in the Constitution no judicial general review or oversight of the legislative branch; only in laws contested by a litigant proving damaged by it, or treaties. The Constitutional Convention nixed this notion because it would give the court too much power. Nor were they allowed an advisory position with respect to legal issues, each branch could do this for itself. They were to be an independent branch existing solely to adjudicate cases brought to the court by others.
Should no one oppose a law or treaty outside the Constitution because opposition to it is too expensive, time-consuming, and tedious it becomes constitutional by default becoming, in time, the bases for additional law that should be equally unconstitutional. Still, it remains a lesser problem than had the court oversight of all legislation.
In the second place justices are limited to just nine classes of cases in which they can adjudicate, as was the Legislative Branch to just 18 areas where they were empowered to write law (Article I, Section 8), and the Executive branch to just eleven listed areas of performance (Article II, Sections 2-3). Remember the purpose of the Constitution was to limit government from ruling everybody and everything.
Article III, Section 2 begins: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The Supreme Court is limited to nine case types. These are: “- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies between two or more States; – [between a State and Citizens of another State;-] between Citizens of different States, – between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]” Constitutionally every case before the Court had to first meet one of these or the Court must decline adjudication.
Why the list of case types? Should not the Supreme Court adjudicate everything? Because they could adjudicate only conflicts in federal law and treaties as decided in the Constitutional Convention and as per congress’s list of areas for approved law (Art. I, Sec. 8). Because when the Constitution was created two co-equal existing governments were recognized called federalism with the states governing domestic and the federal branch governing national and foreign. Because state courts were to adjudicate everything else not listed as federal power in the Constitution and as noted in Amendment 10.
Then the Founders divided this list into original and appellate jurisdictions—one total the other only partial. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Why? Because the first deals entirely with matters of foreign consequence and the second, the state, is the head of the other co-equal governments under federalism.
The Constitution continues, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Now Congress is in charge and clearly can participate should it choose to. “You may not take up this case at this time’” or “you may do so given the following regulations.” This is an essential part of the “check and balances” of the Constitution which has unfortunately never been used.
Unfortunate is Congress’s failure to provide this balance, worse is the failure of many justices to pay any attention to the list provided, which has been the case for most of the past century. Far worse is the tendency of so many justices to just make up an interpretation based on no law.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said. “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up, he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008).
Today the Court is evenly divided between those who make it up and those who follow what the Founders wrote. At least a Justice Kavanaugh has shown that he will not make it up.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 16, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Are you qualified to be the next Supreme Court justice? Perhaps. The only statement in the Constitution with respect to the existence of the Supreme Court lists no qualifications. It reads, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Technically anyone can be a justice and that might be the point. If you suddenly found yourself newly appointed with a case pending next month, what would you first read outside the case summary? Not voluminous law books. Probably the Constitution as written without deviation from it! Today law schools are filled with courses that read what the Constitution has become—case law—but not necessarily the document. Over time the two may even be at variance with each other.
To stay with original intent perhaps we would be better served with a historian who knows the history of why parts were placed in the Constitution and reads the actual writings of the Founding Fathers, most notably the Federalist Papers and the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and understands that this group of statesmen were the most unusual of any previously assembled.
Nor do law schools place a high enough priority on human nature or natural law (law that does not change) as does the Constitution, and as do philosophers, so perhaps a philosopher might be a better selection. Common sense is often close to natural law and no profession has to be more in harmony with “nature’s law” to survive than a farmer; so perhaps a farmer.
Legal precedent is good but if a decision with little or no constitutional basis is not immediately challenged it has power to influence future decisions which are then infected. It costs a plaintiff perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to contest and go through the court system with a case that might result in reversal.
The problem with precedent, which is the primary base of law school instruction, is that one small perversion from original intent justifies another leading to a continuum of distortion. When distortions get large enough they may also invite or allow “jurisdiction jumps” to areas not even mentioned or inferred in the Constitution such as abortion, nationalized healthcare, or marriage. When this happens they become a threat to federalism, a pillar of the Constitution. Federalism is the shared and equal division of power between federal and state governments, neither the master nor servant of the other, each supreme in its area of jurisdiction, as the 10th Amendment, if followed, mandates.
Such also permits the undermining of time-tested principles such as Thomas Jefferson’s old adage, “The best government is the least government.” Precedent does not necessarily inhibit bigger government, which becomes an enemy to the Constitution intentionally designed to limit government. In time advocates of big government inevitably see the Constitution as outdated and its enemy. This is precisely where we are today.
The lack of listed qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice is indeed very curious given the detail for those serving as President and House and Senate members. So omission of listed qualifications for the Supreme Court is by design, not mere oversight.
The President is limited to a four-year term of office and is selected by the states through the Electoral College. Because we are a republic, not a democracy, the Constitution purposely identifies no popular vote for this office. He also must be “a natural born Citizen” and at least 35 years of age and “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
A member of the House of Representatives is elected every two years, must be at least 25-years of age, a citizen of the US for at least seven years, and “an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” A member of the U.S. Senate is elected for a six-year term, must be at least 30-years of age, nine years a citizen and an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
The assumption that a jurist must be a law school graduate, has practiced law, and then been a judge is not necessarily bad of itself, but the assumption that jurists can only come from this limited privileged group is. To know the law is certainly an advantage to a jurist but when law conflicts with, or undermines, original intent or natural law, it is not. Legal is not always constitutional and this may be more easily discerned by one less trained to solve problems with more laws.
The President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” These people serve for life but he is under no obligation to appoint a law school graduate. His primary concern is to select nominees that will follow the Constitution as so many have not, hopefully a Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the traditional law school graduate, will. Still, we have been conditioned to believe that only those in the law profession are qualified to serve. A tough Senate confirmation lies ahead.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 2, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Second Continental Congress, having been convened for six months, had been engaged in the wrestle for or against independence, the vast majority of delegates being decidedly against such drastic action most of this time. Surely there should be a way of reconciling their differences with Great Britain instead.
This was so, even after the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker (Breeds) Hill and the British occupation of Boston. We were at war. King George III had already rejected the Colonists’ Declaration of Rights and Grievances, arguing the violation of their rights under British law, and the pacifist Olive Branch Petition, which reaffirmed colonial loyalty to the king and blamed their problems upon Parliament alone. Moreover, he had declared the Colonists in open rebellion. A full six months prior to the signing a declaration of independence, Parliament had removed the colonies from the protection of the British military, ended all British trade with them, and authorized the confiscation of any American vessel on the seas. Still, delegates could not bring themselves to separate from their “mother,” the British Empire.
On July 1, 1776, the Patriots finally risked “putting the question” to a tentative count but were numbingly shocked by the result. Four colonies New York, South Carolina, Delaware and Pennsylvania did not support declaring independence from Great Britain. The Patriots needed to show solidarity. A vote of only nine colonies would show disunity.
This is where the brilliance of John Adams, from Massachusetts, and Richard Henry Lee, from Virginia, came into play. They got Edward Rutledge to use his influence to persuade South Carolina, for the sake of unity, to join those supporting independence, if Pennsylvania and Delaware could be persuaded to do likewise. Convinced that that could never happen, Rutledge agreed. Next, Adams and Lee worked on Delaware which had three representatives, one for and another against independence and a third, Caesar Rodney, who was pro declaration, was recuperating from health problems at his farm 80 miles away and probably would not be able to be there to vote the next day. Apparently he had skin cancer and a sore on his face the “size of a large apple.” The Delaware delegate favoring independence sent a messenger to Rodney to try to get him to the Convention for the vote. This necessitated an 80-mile all night ride by the sick delegate.
Now they needed to change the vote of Pennsylvania with seven delegates, four of who were against independence. Amazingly Adams and Lee convinced two of these to be absent for voting the next day. This would place Pennsylvania in the camp of the Patriots three to two. New York, without instructions to vote for independence, remained neutral refusing to vote at all. The gamble was that in these agreements in South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Delaware there existed too many ifs, and would everyone do as promised? They needed a “little miracle,” perhaps three.
Sometime after lunch the next day July 2, 1776, Caesar Rodney, “caked with mud from head to foot,” having ridden though a severe thunderstorm and torrential rain “entered the assembly room, and when his name was called for Delaware he rose with difficulty but in a clear voice stated: ‘As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is in favor of Independence and my own judgment concurs with them, I vote for Independence’ ” (Declaration of Independence: The Keepsake Album of its Creation, by Joseph P. Cullen, American History Illustrated p. 34).
This “little miracle” made Delaware the 10th colony for a declaration that these colonies were free and independent states. The two lesser “miracles” followed. Pennsylvania followed as planned when the two con-delegates did not show to vote as promised, leaving a simple majority for independence, and Rutledge kept his word and persuaded South Carolina to become the 12th colony for the sake of unity. With New York abstaining the Patriots could announce to the world that the vote had carried without an opposing vote. All this happened within 26 hours, when the day before, at 10:00 a. m., only nine colonies supported independence.
A draft of The Declaration of Independence had been written, reviewed by committee, and tabled on June 28, until after an affirmative vote for independence. This achieved, its finalization by the whole house followed on July 4, 1776, passing 12 to 0, again with New York abstaining. But could all this be vindicated on the battlefield, as war with Great Britain was certain to follow as a result, that seemed just as improbable perhaps needing additional “little miracles,” or would these men merit only the gallows, but that is a story for another day?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 25, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (pun intended) squarely at the government. But certainly we have no fear of the government today?
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the primary reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the serious self-correction they used.
The wordage of the 2nd Amendment was stronger than any other sentence in the Constitution. “A well regulated militia [the people], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They saw this right as being connected with a free country and specifically forbade the federal government any authority with respect to it because historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to inter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue— was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many do fear our government today. If freedom is measured, as it was in Jefferson’s day, by the “least government is the best government” we are less free today than when ruled by the British. We fear when all three branches ignore constitutional restrictions of their power. When the Executive Branch issues more restrictions on our behavior, through executive orders, than Congress passes new laws. When Congress will not limit itself to listed powers. When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in such a way as to bestow themselves with powers never intended by the founders such as healthcare, marriage, and abortion.
We fear when unelected bureaucrats (DOJ, FBI and CIA) refuse congressional (the peoples’) oversight. When justice for sharing classified documents differs widely for a Clinton from that rendered General Petraeus. When pro-Clinton investigators exonerate Hillary on her 33,000 deleted emails on a personal server (many classified), are the same investigators as on the Mueller Special Counsel designed to alter the results of a presidential election, equal justice is compromised and the Justice Department is weaponized.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on notice of the governs’ ability to resist should inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the unconstitutional antics noted above perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny? An option we hope never to have to use again.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 11, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Iowa is the 15th state to reject the proposed Article V Convention of States thus far this year. Going off the established process of constitutional change is too radical for most. They remain comfortable with both houses of Congress proposing one amendment at a time followed by its ratification by three fourths of the states.
But Article V does allow a second method should Congress refuse to make needed change. “On the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” This is thought to be necessary primarily because Congress will not authorize an amendment to force itself to balance its budget and failure to do so allows destructive unrestricted spending by both political parties. Congress has not proposed a constitutional change since the 27th Amendment in May 1992.
But instead of states using Article V to force an amendment to balance the budget activists from both the right and the left say, in effect, we have a number of other issues that also need amendment power. But this creates the problem of multiple amendments to consider simultaneously without sufficient venting of each.
Constitutionalists say lets continue to propose just one change at a time so that it gets a full review and we do not open the floodgates of unintended consequences for what we do not want. The 14th Amendment is criticized today because it allowed multiple issues in one amendment, which opened the door to the most vague interpretations and thus law never intended by its founders. Constitutionalists welcome a balanced budget amendment by itself but that is not now what Conventionalists are proposing.
Once the Convention of States is formed, and amendments to the constitution are proposed, these changes are ratified by state power alone—the federal government may propose but it is excluded from the process of enlarging or reducing its power. Ratification requires three-fourths of either state legislatures or state conventions (a process that opens participation to the public) “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Congress selects the mode presumably common for all states.
But a convention of states method was only tried at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. To make it open ended is risky. Whatever happens creates legal precedent for the future and thus the danger. Many see the convention process as returning to what the Founders did when they were commissioned to repair the then existing Constitution. Once together they chose to instead dump The Articles of Confederation creating a different constitution, what they had not been commissioned to do. Congress, after receiving their report, simply forwarded it to the states and in that act legitimized it.
Common knowledge that the existing constitution was not repairable, the Federalist Papers explaining the new constitution’s natural law and human nature base, and belief that God was assisting, made success possible. Today I cannot name 55 (the number signing the Constitution) persons in all of government, federal or state that I would trust to design a better Constitution than now exists.
Convention enthusiasts, mostly Republicans, believe that they can hold at bay the proposals of opposing parties or that Congress can somehow control the proposals and their specificity, but Congress has nothing to say once gathered, any more than it did in 1787. Even had Congress such power, enthusiasts have too much faith in Congress doing the right thing. The call for a Convention of States is based upon their long history of NOT following the Constitution as written. Were Congress to return to the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 there would exist no need for another convention.
Enthusiasts also have too much faith in states having management power over convention delegates before and during the proposal convention or delegate removal power should a delegate go rogue. But what if they all go rogue as in 1787? The states also have a long history of NOT following the Constitution as written. The Constitution itemizes the powers of Congress as noted above. All unlisted powers remain with the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Were the states to uphold this one amendment they could force the federal government to uphold the Constitution ending the need for another convention.
Somehow convention enthusiasts believe that if they get delegates and office holders pledged by oath to uphold new amendments the changes will follow but all federal, state, county and city officials are already so pledged and such is ignored. Article IV, Section II reads: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” If these already violate their oaths on a regular basis what evidence exits that they will not violate the new oath? The call for a new Convention of States is based upon the fact that they dishonored their oath to uphold the Constitution.
No wonder Iowa and 14 sister states rejected this dangerous and unpredictable method of constitutional change.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 5, 2018 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Put bluntly Democrats vastly support extermination of their unwanted preborn and Republican support is less likely. Two recent issues have forced a wider gulf on abortion than ever: science has shown a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy and many taxpayers oppose funding extermination clinics. If we followed the Constitution abortion would not be government approved in all states and the practice would not be federally funded.
Republican Iowa governor, Kim Reynolds, just signed a law banning abortions when a heartbeat can be detected, normally about six weeks of pregnancy. The new law, set to begin July 1, will replace a 20-week law passed last year. Exceptions to the law include some cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life, otherwise it is pretty firm. Acknowledging that the law may be litigated she said: “This is bigger than just a law, this is about life, and I’m not going to back down.” Mississippi already has a similar law banning extermination after 15 weeks.
Opposed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, a string of other states are poised to legislate it in. When the term to justify extinction was “viability” of the fetus (even full-term deliveries are not viable without human intervention) elimination appeared “reasonable” to some until science showed the existence of a heartbeat at 16 weeks, then it seemed more like a human baby—like killing humankind. Especially when most physicians believe fetus pain is present.
The other issue, funding primarily extermination centers like Planned Parenthood, with forced taxpayer dollars through Title X seemed wrong and unjust to those who view abortion as killing their own. For years those for abortion have gotten away with terminology suggesting that what existed in the womb was a mere glob of cells or just tissue, the result, conditioned public insensitivity. Forgive my intended bluntness to shock even the most insensitive into understanding the issue.
Many who work in Planned Parenthood centers admit that perhaps 80% of what they do is exterminate underdeveloped humans. This is not family planning; it is instead the destruction of the family. Nor are such centers primarily for women’s health unless you can argue that pregnant women are unhealthy because they are pregnant. Abortion is not healthcare.
If women’s health were the real issue, redistributing the annual $260 million in Title X grants, now given to Planned Parenthood, to instead hundreds of genuine comprehensive women’s health clinics would better serve vastly more women. But funding extermination centers remains the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood.
Since Roe Vs. Wade we have aborted 60,449,039 in the U.S (http://www.numberofabortions.com/). A review of abortion pictures on the Internet often show tiny human body parts separated from the whole body when a scalpel was used to cut up the body making it easier to expel.
Sadly abortion would not be a federal issue if both political parties followed the listed limits of federal power in the Constitution as designed. The word abortion is not found in the Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving it from a state power (where all powers not specifically identified in the Constitution as federal reside) to a federal prerogative. Instead, from its inception, the Constitution housed the philosophy of federalism, (shared government), the federal government to manage foreign, and the states domestic, policy.
Without constitutional perversion to original intent the Supreme Court cannot rule, as it did in Roe Vs. Wade in 1973, in such a way as to create new law in an area where no federal law first existed or was subsequently added by way of a constitutional amendment. That we have traveled some 45 years from the Constitution in this particular area is not authority to extend that travel.
Article 1, Section 8 lists federal powers. This clause divides all federal power into the four following areas: to tax, pay debt, provide for the general welfare and common defense. So as to restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two grants of power of the four each had an additional eight clauses giving clarity to what was meant by general welfare (clauses 2-9) and common defense (clauses 10-17). Outside these qualifiers the federal government has no power to tax, spend, legislate, administrate or adjudicate.
Even with the clarification of the list, states fearing that the federal government might still like to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions harnessing it more fully to the enumerated powers, hence the Bill of Rights. These end with the handcuffs of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding or assuming powers clearly not on it is that each time it does so, even once, the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. The result, in this case, is that mothers, encouraged by their federal government, exterminated over 60 million of their own; about ten times the number of Jews killed in the Nazi holocaust death camps, universally condemned.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
