Constitutionalism

A study of the early years of our republic reveals something interesting to us today. In those days, perhaps the biggest political debate, or certainly one of the biggest, was the debate between 'strict construction' and 'broad construction' of the constitution. That is, all those on all sides were dedicated to upholding the constitution, but varied on exactly how to apply it.

Here's an example. Broad constructionists desired to have a national bank. Strict constructionists did not. The strict constructionists insisted that the constitution was absolutely silent about the issue of a national bank. The central (federal) government can only do those things enumerated in the constitution. To create a national bank would be to step outside the bounds of what is allowed constitutionally. The broad constructionists would argue that the constitution gave the central government power to coin money, set the value thereof, tax, borrow, etc. A national bank would be a natural facilitator for carrying out these constituional activities.

Bottom line: BOTH sides (and these were heated debates between very strongly opposing factions) but BOTH sides looked for constitutional provision in order to carry out a policy.

A couple of other examples of constitutionalism is in order. Thomas Jefferson, a strict constructionist, was personally in favor of the government providing education. That is, his personal opinion would be in line with the prevailing notion of today. Central government spending in provision of education. BUT, Jefferson also saw that there was absolutely no constitutional provision for this. He did not push it because of that reason. He stated that before he could pursue such a cause, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to allow for it. That is why we have provisions for constitutional amendments. It is also why the provisions are not easy to satisfy. We don't want to amend the constitution on a whim!

Another example is the famous court case of Marbury v Madison. Without going into the details of the case, which are somewhat complex, basically the Chief Justice emphatically believed the cause of the plaintiff was just. However, he also believed that the nature of the case was such that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. "Hey Mr. Marbury. I sympathize with you, but I have no authority to do anything about it."

Can you even imagine that today. Presidents saying "I believe in doing thus and so, but I recognize it is outside of the bounds of the constitution. Therefore, unless and until an amendment is passed, I will not pursue this issue." Justices saying "I believe in this cause, but it is outside of my jurisdiction." This simply does not happen today.

With the upcoming anniversary of Roe v Wade it is interesting to note that had this view been adhered to then, the judges would have been forced to say "I believe in a woman's right to abortion, but I do not believe the constitution gives this court the authority to dictate its allowance to the states." Instead they just arbitrarily ruled in the way they did. They, and all the politicians that follow them have since that time insisted that they are not personally really all for abortions, but that there was some sort of 'constitutional' right to one.

What a change we have undergone!!! Today we have politicians who all pay lip service to the constitution, but totally ignore its most basic interpretations. Virtually all of our politicians are not constructionists at all. They claim some sort of dedication to some fuzzy concept of what the American Constitution is, but totally and completely ignore its provisions and limitations. Those on the supposedly 'right' side of the political spectrum ignore the constitution for supposedly 'conservative' causes. Those on the supposedly 'left' side of the spectrum, ignore the constitution for supposedly 'liberal' causes. In the end, they really overlap almost totally. That is why we can have a 'conservative' Republican President work with a 'liberal' Democratic Congress and come up with, for example, all these simply wonderful (cough, choke, gag) programs for education. (Both sides would do well to contemplate Jefferson's take on it!)

Of all the candidates of either major party, only Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. All the others, I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will totally and completely ignore the actual words of the constitution. Dr. Paul has very little chance of winning the nomination, but he is making waves, which is hopefully a good sign for the future. People know something has gone wrong with our government. They just don't know exactly what it is. Now they perhaps have a slightly better understanding. Hopefully you do too!!