Constitution day
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, September 13, 2006


Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.
I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it -- Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason that Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam. James Madison's vision was later expressed by Rep. William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."
Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?



Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

I guess those "slave owners" had little tolerance for "beneficial" anything unless it feathered their nests. The premises of the constitution are solid in their respect for individual rights, but the needs of the society need to be balanced within our govt. in modern times. They had no infrastructure to speak of back then. The family was a much more solid unit than now. they took care of their own, no need for a social structure. you cannot even begin to compare those times to these. For a lot of reasons, the family structure is not as strong as it was, example: It takes two incomes for the average family to live, IE. the mother is not there to run the household. To propose that modern society should not have a structure to take care of all the problems in it would be to condone anarchy, and just think, there would be no thugs (police) to protect the rich, a real tradgedy. there is no comparison between the 1700s and the 2000s, they didn't even have flush toilets. to cherry pick lines from the constitution and apply them to modern times, Ridiculous!

So, is your answer to trash the Constitution? I mean, if you don't think it is relevent to today, why keep it? With that said, please state what you would replace it with, and how society would look under your rendition of the document. Oh ... and as you type out your response, please keep in mind that the Constitution is the liberty document that chains the power of the federal government.

I'm curious about something. In your new constitution, would you agree with inserting the following words: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs."


Vi

Man that sounds great, can we do it, sign me up!!

Well, it's been tried before. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto. You should read it sometime.

Oh, and by the way ... a "Heavy, progressive income tax" is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto as well.


Vi

"Heavy, progressive income tax" The only way to fly> The more you make, the more you pay. an equitable solution to our National debt crises. We didn't have a crises untill Bush-Cheny gave 95% of the taxes back to the richest 10 percent, and I believe that the top 2% got most of that. Boy you Rich guys sure cry when they try and take "your" money Waaaaaaa........ Ever heard a hungry child cry, or a family being thrown out of their house for non-payment because of job loss, You guys are pathetic!

We didn't have a crises untill Bush-Cheny gave 95% of the taxes back to the richest 10 percent, and I believe that the top 2% got most of that.

Here's some homework for ya. What was the national debt that the federal government piled up prior to GW taking office? Please feel free to include the Clintoon administration.

Vi

PS: A Google search will lead you to the answer.

Baaarrrffff! I heard that Clintons party handed a surplus to Bush, Whats that, more commie lies?

No ... its not "commie lies." if you were really astute you would know that there is a difference between the year to year budget and the national debt. But what's the use? I mean if one is just commenting based upon "feelings" and not fact ... who needs knowledge?

Vi

Baaaarrrrffff! Thats the most intelligent thing I have to say to you. Stay in your little box and spout fascist ideas to those who care, I don't!