The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.
Not only did July 4, 1776, mark American independence from England, it also marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time — and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.
Advertisement
The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called “the shot heard ’round the world.”
Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot — and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.
Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been “exceptional.” You couldn’t be more exceptional in the 18th century than to begin your fundamental document — the Constitution of the United States — with the momentous words, “We the people.”
Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way — and they include many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs — find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.
More than 100 years ago, so-called “Progressives” began a campaign to undermine the Constitution’s strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven’t really changed much in 100 years.
The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution, “Does it still matter?”
A long and rambling essay by the magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.
The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers, and DNA.
This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone.”
In Mr. Stengel’s rehash of this argument, he declares: “People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.”
Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular “events” or express opinions about the passing scene.
A constitution exists to create a framework for government — and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.
From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.”
Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: “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.”
Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel — Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, “You could look it up.”
Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn’t, then your freedom doesn’t matter.
Dr. Sowell manages to eloquently make the most complex subjects seem so clear. The Constitution is as relevant today as it was when it was first drafted. It is the basic road map for how we the people are governed. It is simply brilliant.
The President and his cabal of Progressives would like to either ignore, repeal or replace the constitution in order to usurp power from the people. If we allow this to happen we lose our freedom and will live under a totalitarian government which may be benevolent or malevolent.Do you really want to run that risk?
If put to a vote of the American people any such measure to replace our Constitution will be soundly defeated.
"So what powers ARE delegated to the United States by the Constitution?"
You could look it up. In the Constitution, of all places.
I get the feeling you would like to use the 2 words "general welfare" as a blank check to ignore everything else the Constitution says that you don't like.
It's all in there. what the Legislature can do, what the Judiciary can do, and what the Executive branch can do. Really, must we spoon feed you everything? Like a baby bird, would you be happier if we pre-digested it for you? Does liberal intellectual laziness know no bounds? It isn't like you even have to research a variety of sources (unless you want to delve deeper) to answer your question. There's just one source, well annotated, and fairly short.
I bet if you look around hard enough, you can even find a copy that is told with pictures, aimed for the three year old mentality you seem to be utilizing.
And, by the way, promoting the general welfare is a purpose of government, according to the preamble, not a power enumerated to it. Like ensuring the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, or providing for the common defense. You promote the general welfare by sensibly utilizing the tools in your tool belt (ie. the powers granted the government by the document itself and it's various amendments). Really, such a simple concept yet so beyond the mentality of a progressive. And you complain that Dr. Sowell's summation is too simple? Given the degree of cognitive dissonance reflected in your inability to distinguish between goals and powers, I would think nothing could be too simple for you to comprehend. Once again, you prove me wrong. I used to think I was a pessimist in estimating the abilities of my fellow citizens. Thank you for proving me an optimist.
It's not that Sowell's answers are too simple, it's that you are too clever by half.
The general welfare clause does not authorize a single power to the federal govt. It explains why the limited powers listed below it are necessary.
If all powers were a pie chart, a functioning govt would have less than 10%, possibly as little as 1%.
Pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independance. If you think that it is necessary for govt to have vast powers in order for you to pursue happiness, then you a small, sad little creature.
Remember Mike, it's the pursuit of happiness. Nobody is guarenteed that they will catch it.
For once I agree with MikeB, which is a first for me, Sowell's answers are simple. They are so simple, almost everyone understands them - unless one wishes to hide their head in their nether region.
If you don't like Mr. Sowell's answers, there are plenty of additional documents that the Founders provided to help you understand. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are packed with information that displays the reasoning behind the Constitution's structure.
These documents, plus personal letters and other historical information, clearly show the LIMITED vision of the "general welfare" clause. Try as you might to claim that the Founders weren't smart enough to envision a future that was different from their own time. But in reading their own words, you'll see they completely knew what they were doing - and did it brilliantly.
The closer we can move back to their original intent, the better off our Republic will be.
When you think about it, you will realize that those who come up with the fallacious argument, "The Constitution does not address X," has not only made X worse, but made everything worse in general. Never do they ever stop to think that they shouldn't meddle in things they don't understand; the fact that they don't understand it is all they need to keep on meddling. We're all the worse off for it.
Even IF the "General Welfare" clause (Which is in the preamble, not the actual meat of the document) and the Commerce clause were blank checks, later amendments always override the points of the existing document they address. Hence, the states don't elect Senators, even though that is what the body of the Constitution calls for. Therefore, the limitations on government in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th amendment, interpret and constrain the general clauses of the body of the document.
Progressives have an answer for everything including equivocation on whether the constitution "really" makes you "free." They can, by nature, never ever take no for an answer. They are the collective and they are always right.
Freedom to a Progressive is secondary, illusory and debatable compared to living according to what they think at the time they think it.
Progressives are good at micromanaging details and terrible at comprehending the big picture. This is because they fail to comprehend human nature - in fact, they deny that there are defined human characteristics.
Progressives like to think that they are bold new artists, working on a fresh canvas. In reality, they are more like jigsaw puzzle enthusiasts - with one major difference. If a piece of their puzzle doesn't fit where they want to put it, they will forcibly alter its shape - which makes all the other pieces no longer fit as well. Their projects will therefore cause chaos and ultimately fail.
The constitution is a big picture document. It is too huge for progressives to comprehend. It was written on a framework of commonly shared values, which progressives have rejected.
Stengel and his intellectual brethren have a vested interest in discrediting the Constitution, in keeping with the century-old Progressive program to engorge government and grow its influence without bound.
The canard Dr. Sowell correctly identifies regarding the Constitution is based upon a willful distortion of the purpose of the Constitution, beginning with its subject matter. Broadly speaking, the Constitution has as its subject matter human nature. The Constitution specifies an architecture of government that directly responds to the facts of human nature. Namely, humans are flawed creatures, not perfectible in any sense of the word, and those in whom we invest power and influence must be carefully restrained by
(a) legal limitations upon the powers with which they are temporarily entrusted, via explicitly enumerated powers, which is to say that most of human affairs were declared to be outside the reach of Congress and the Executive;
(b) separation of powers that harness competition among human beings to mutually restrain the various organs of government;
(c) making the federal government subordinate to the States as a whole, recognizing the Constitution is a contractual agreement amongst the States that creates the federal government.
The Founders wisely instituted those restraints to as a hedge against people given political power, lest their imperfections and vices be unleashed upon the citizenry.
Correspondingly they also restrained the people by avoiding refusing to tolerate the institution of democracy, which they correctly identified as mob rule.
Unfortunately, their insight as to the fragility of freedom has been all too forcefully verified.
With the passage of the 17th Amendment and the federal abuses of the separation of powers between the federal government and the States, our government is rapidly devolving into Euro-style totalitarianism.
The only thing unique about Obama is he is fully exploiting the powers that have been unlawfully aggregated to the federal government.
Kudos to WalkingHorse for the most succinct explanation of the constitution's intellectual and moral underpinnings that I can remember. It was the founders very understanding of the fragility of human nature that let them to limit the powers of the federal government to those few enumerated powers. And it was the fears of the Anti-Federalists which lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights inclusive of the 10th Amendment. Progressives like Obama do nothing more clearly then validate the (now almost lost) wisdom of those leaders.
Here again you make a bare assertion without offering any support for your implied position: in this case that the general welfare clause is an expansive grant of federal power.
Yet a simple review of the text of Art. I, Sec. 8, where the general welfare clause is found, reveals that there is not even a grant of any power in that phrase.
The first clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 includes only a general power to tax to pay for the implementation of the powers granted in the succeeding clauses:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The grants of power that follow in Sec. 8 are components of the "common Defence" and "general Welfare." If the first clause contained a general power of Congress to legislate matters of the general welfare and common defense, then every clause following the first would be utterly redundant.
There is a common sense legal principle that statutes are to be given their plain meaning (unless that plain meaning would defeat the clear intent of the statute), and be read so as not to render other parts of the statute redundant or contradictory.
Of the powers granted to Congress in the clauses following the taxing power which relate to general welfare are:
To borrow money;
To regulate interstate and foreign commerce;
To establish rules for citizenship and laws for bankruptcy;
To coin money;
To punish counterfeiters;
To establish Post Offices and postal roads;
To establish rules to protect intellectual property (patents, copyright, etc.);
To establish federal courts; and
To exercise legislative power over what would later be D.C.
The powers granted to Congress in Sec. 8 relating to the common defense are as follows:
To define and punish piracy, etc;
To declare war;
To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the military;
To provide for calling up the Militia (e.g. National Guard); and
To govern, arm, etc. the Militia.
Sec. 8 then concludes with the necessary and proper clause which gives Congress the powers necessary and proper for carrying out the preceding grants of power and the powers granted elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g. elections (Sec. 4), Congressional pay (Sec. 6)).
To read the general welfare clause as you suggest (and even as many courts and Constitutional scholars would read it) is unsupportable both because of the express language of the tax clause and the following clauses which would be entirely meaningless and redundant if the first clause had given Congress a general power to legislate in matters of the common defense and general welfare.
The strength of your contentions is inversely proportional to your insistence on the simplicity and transparency of the Constitution.
The simple, clear truths of this document escaped the notice of the learned Joseph Story, who was able to devote a full three volumes to explaining it -- in 1833. Not to mention the hundreds of scholars and Supreme Court justices who have wrestled with it since then.
But oh, this group of NRO readers and responders knows so, so much more than they.
