Dismissing the Constitution

by Jim Ramsay

At a meeting with other liberty minded folks, I was asked, “does the Constitution really matter?” The question surprised me at first, but it inspired me to address the topic. To analyze that question, we have to ask, what is the Constitution? The Constitution is the chief governing document of the United States that lists the exact powers of the federal government and goes so far in the tenth amendment to state, "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." This clearly says any power not explicitly spelled out is retained by the States or people. The entire document limits the authority of government.

Why is this basic understanding of the document crucial? To answer that question, we need to understand the high level categories of government. There are two categories of government: the rule of men and the rule of law.

The rule of men is based on the momentary desires of men. A variant of this category of government is democracy. We often think we live in a democracy, and there are factions in our country attempting to make it so, but this is not the case. Thomas Jefferson described democracy as, “…nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” If our rights are controlled by the whim of men, then the motivation to manipulate and mislead voters is strong: the rules can be changed relatively easily. This encourages back room deals, alliances, and oligarchy. The cost of this model is that the society is built upon sand. Men stop acting and are reduced to fear and following. Government devolves into Tyranny.

The rule of law is based on long term stable principles recorded and protected in written law. A variant of this category of government is a Constitutional Republic. When asked what form of government the founders had created at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin responded, "A republic if you can keep it.” The role of the Constitution was also spelled out by Jefferson when he said, “in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Men are wont to commit mischief. A society based upon stable values, protected by law, is capable of greatness. The United States and our attempt to follow the rule of law have brought the world more progress in technology, freedom, and creativity than any other country in the history of the world.

The Constitution is not merely important, it is crucial to every aspect of our civilization. Dismissing or trivializing it can only be done at our peril. Is this a harmless question amongst politically disaffected citizens? If only it were.

Nancy Pelosi was recently asked by a CNSNews reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Pelosi's press spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami later showed that this was not an off handed remark by the speaker, when he said, “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.” Did they really mean that questions of constitutionality are not serious? Dismissing a question of constitutionality smacks of arrogance of power and shows the disregard some in congress have for the rule of law and the governing principles of our republic. Telling a reporter something like this is one thing, but the question can and should echo in our minds.

The real response to the underlying question from the speaker’s office is worse than her comment above. The document states, “But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.” Let that last sentence sink in for a minute. They believe their power to regulate health care is unlimited.

Could they tax certain foods because they are too fattening as some localities are already doing? Could they insist you follow a government specified diet, say force you to be a vegetarian to ease global warming? Could they have a panel, such as they have in Great Britain , where they decide what if you will receive treatment? Could they insist on forced abortions and sterilization to reduce population as happens in China? If they believe their power is unlimited, their answer to all these questions is, “yes we can!” At the heart of the health care takeover being discussed in congress are the beliefs that your mind and body belong to the state and that they have unlimited power over every aspect of our lives. Some may think this is hyperbole, but please read that statement again: “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.” The word unlimited has a specific meaning. They believe all of these things and more are within their power.

If we value the rule of law, we must deconstruct the comments of those in authority. We must evaluate both their premises as well as the implications of their arguments. Our civilization, lives, and liberties hang in the balance.