Congressional Constitutional Contempt

By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Here's the oath of office administered to members of the House and Senate: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." A similar oath is sworn to by the president and federal judges.

In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The Act, which has yet to be enacted into law, reads: "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief."
Simply put, if enacted, the Enumerated Powers Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions. HR 1359 has 28 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.

When Shadegg introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, he explained that the Constitution gives the federal government great, but limited, powers. Its framers granted Congress, as the central mechanism for protecting liberty, specific rather than general powers. The Constitution gives Congress 18 specific enumerated powers, spelled out mostly in Article 1, Section 8. The framers reinforced that enumeration by the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Just a few of the numerous statements by our founders demonstrate that their vision and the vision of Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act are one and the same. James Madison, in explaining the Constitution in Federalist Paper No. 45, said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Regarding the "general welfare" clause so often used as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." 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."

Congressmen, openly refusing to live up to their oath of office, exhibit their deep contempt for our Constitution. The question I've not been able to answer satisfactorily is whether that contempt simply mirrors a similar contempt held by most of the American people. I'm sure that if founders such as James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson were campaigning for the 2008 presidential elections, expressing their vision of the federal government's role, today's Americans would run them out of town on a rail. Does that hostility reflect constitutional ignorance whereby the average American thinks the Constitution authorizes Congress to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote or anything that's a good idea? Or, are Americans contemptuous of the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government?
I salute the bravery of Rep. Shadegg and the 28 co-sponsors of the Enumerated Powers Act. They have a monumental struggle. Congress is not alone in its constitutional contempt, but is joined by the White House and particularly the constitutionally derelict U.S. Supreme Court.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Seems like a good Idea. We must take into consideration that although the basic principles of the Constitution still apply, or should, that this is a very different country now than it was in 1776, or 1784, and real issues need to be addressed in a modern forum. This is not the land where poor people can go out and make a living on 40 acres and a mule anymore. This is not the land of clean air and clean rivers and streams where drinkable water resides. This is the land of corruption and corporate greed, politics are gravely skewed, and lying is accepted as the norm. We must realize that strict constitutional reform would never work in this society, But the basic principles would surely help if applied to our government.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Med sez ...

"We must realize that strict constitutional reform would never work in this society, But the basic principles would surely help if applied to our government"

And here you have stated a common misconception about the Constitution ... a misconception that is typical of a government schooled education, I might add.

The Constitution's ONLY purpose is that it be applied to the federal government. It is the chain that binds the power of the federal government. You want to "modernize" it? Sorry Med, that's tantamount to modernizing slavery.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

it's all about the precedents we're setting. the Constitution can't go out of date, it's not possible for liberty to expire. we just drift further and further from the shore, losing sight of land and ignoring our compass we "guess" which way to go with wild legislation that dictates our speech, our education, our right to bear arms, the right to life itself.

society today treats congress like a vending machine - we put our tax money in and select the junk food we want in return. it's funny because those same snacks and many more are available at half the cost from the store on the corner - along with some healthy alternatives! plus, the person at the counter can't "eat" your change, lol.

we are the "skew", we are the "corruption", we are the "greed" and if we don't stop looking to government to fix US we'll never be free.






.

__________________
"But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, Hero to the servants of big government, Racist War Monger

I thought the constitution and the Bill of rights was also a guarantee of certain freedoms for the citizens, NO?

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

The Bill of Rights lays out certain rights, but we as citizens are not limited to those rights only. The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution is a set of powers that we the people have delegated to the federal government. These powers are strictly limited. The constitutional limitation of these powers has always been the big bugaboo to the statists/Marxist/socialist/fascists who constantly attempt to go around the Constitution to get what they want. This is what the great battles over the supreme court nominees are all about. Statists have used the courts to legislate from the bench because they know Congress cannot. Interestingly enough, Med ... there is nothing in the Constitution that states the Supreme Court has the final say on anything.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Let me ask you this. Outside of paying less taxes, what great benefits would all this antigovernment bullarck you espouse do for you? Don't you already live a life of excess, one only one in a hundred thousand could ever hope to achieve? Does the term greedy have any meaning to you? I am not jealouse of your achievements, Kudos. I just think you should be happy with what you have and quit bitching about the government, Pay unto Caesar.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

My dear Med ...

You continue to make assumptions about me without knowing one iota about my actual cirmumstances. You assume that because I talk about a smaller, less intrusive federal government and a return to financial privacy for the people that I'm some kind of rich cat. I may be, or I may not be ... but that is not the question. The question is between liberty and slavery ... a point that you are refusing to get. Why you are refusing to get the point is beyond me ... other than you have a political agenda that blinds you from the truth.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.