PERIL, AS WE APPROACH THE ARTICLES

  Posting 8

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Having overviewed the elements within the Preamble to the United States Constitution, we now undertake the task of summarizing its Articles proper. Yet such an undertaking carries with it a certain degree of peril, peril that has existed since the genesis of our country, a peril that shall be addressed shortly.

The basics of the Constitution are relatively straightforward: seven articles dealing with the set up and role of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts, and the States, plus the process for amendments, general matters, and the approval of the document. This is followed by 27 Amendments, the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights.

To say that the United States Constitution is unique among world legal documents would be a bit of an understatement. Its identity of government defies much of common thought:

o   It is, at once, a federal government and a collaboration of state governments, simultaneously balancing the rights of these smaller units with the functioning of one national entity.

o   It is a democracy, but only in the general sense that the people can govern themselves. In reality, the United States of America is a representative Republic, in that these people can select and change the leaders, who then represent their interests.

o   It is a government of checks and balances. The three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are perpetually engaged in a dance of sorts in their roles. The Legislature passes a law, but the Executive (the President) can approve or reject it. If the President rejects the law, the Legislature can override that veto. The Judicial branch can rule on laws and actions taken by the President and Congress, but the President can appoint and the Congress must approve those justices.

So it would seem that each branch of government checks the power of the others, balancing said power so that no one branch can become too strong. It almost seems to this writer that the founding fathers may have wanted to head off the problems inherent in the expression, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In short, it seems like one of the fundamental strengths of the system of government laid out in the United States Constitution is its somewhat cynical view of human nature and its mechanism to keep these natural cravings for power under control.

To be certain, our founding fathers often engaged in spirited debate—some would say raucous arguments—over the shape of this government. This writer will leave it to historians and scholars to explain, clarify, vilify, or defend the assertions of these sessions. In the end of it all, the people—we the People—did ordain and establish this Constitution of he United States of America, a document that has stood for over 200 years.

But the peril did not end at our country’s founding. Indeed, the arguments have taken a more somber turn, as modern minds and modern movements would seek to dismiss the foundational principles of this document. This is not always the work of nefarious “villains,” lurking in the shadows determined to destroy our society. No, indeed; but the determination to diminish and deter our founding principles frequently comes from the popular and the admired, from the influencers whose opinions on any subject are considered expert, from even the very representatives of our government, who, knowing the grand Constitution, nevertheless would call for its dismantling. And there are those whose zeal to “save” this great country propel them to ignore the damage they do to the Constitution. The bad arguments, the over-simplified and under-applied rhetoric transcend political affiliation.

To blazes with peril! Let us continue to talk about the Constitution, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves of its splendidness in its totality or in its components.

by Aplo 

ABOUT SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY

 Posting 7

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Most rational people would agree that liberty is a good thing. Dictators, despots, and tyrants may routinely work against liberty, but in their own perverse way, they actually reserve to themselves what they deny to others, sort of a self-centered liberty which frees them to do what they want (such as restricting the liberty of others).

But in the preamble of the United States Constitution, one of the purposes of the document is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Let us lay aside any nefarious ideas of liberty—such as those propagated through social media—and agree that, at the very least, liberty might very well be found in those rights and freedoms found in our laws (particularly the Bill of Rights).

It must also be made clear that liberties, freedoms, and rights are only as good as their source. A tyrannical dictatorship will not secure many, if any, blessings of liberty, let alone those that would extend freedom in time. “Self” as the basis of liberty has its own weakness, in that it fosters personal ideas which may or may not work for the benefit of our Union, and fails to reflect anyone’s preferences but its own.

This writer humbly believes that the source of our rights and liberties is stated in the Declaration of Independence, in which we read that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (emphasis added). While our government may work on the application of these blessings of liberty, their Source is transcendent to humanity.

As “we the people” acknowledge this Source,  we are far better equipped to secure these blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.
 

by Aplo

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GENERAL WELFARE

Posting 6 

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

One of the purposes for the Constitution of the United States is to “promote the General Welfare.” Alas, some interpret this as meaning that the United States is to “provide general welfare” to all its people. This writer is justifiably uneasy about such a reading.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare.  At the time of its drafting, “welfare” was another word for “well-being.” And, of course, the government had a desire to promote the “well-being” of the nation by various means. The concern was for the health and safety of the citizens of this country.  In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “general welfare” was defined as “exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.”

As is inevitable, there are disagreements as to what exactly constitutes “general welfare” today. And while the experts would certainly quibble over the scope of general well-being, there is no question (as this writer as argued many times) that the federal government has some obligation—by virtue of the fact that we are one nation—to promote the “well-being” of its citizens.

But are we then to suppose that Congress can spend unlimited money on anything it deems necessary for the “general welfare?” Inasmuch as the Constitution empowers Congress to enact taxes for such, and inasmuch as such taxes are incurred by “we the people,” it would seem prudent that caution and restraint are in order, lest the Congress cast off all restraint and fund grand programs that some of its citizenry neither wants nor needs.

Indeed, given that certain powers are reserved to the states, many state constitutions have their own, more specific, definitions of what it means to promote the well-being of its citizens. By remembering this, we allow the individual states to tend to their unique needs and leave the federal government responsible for promoting the general welfare of the country.

by Aplo