Guest Commentary by Dan Reale
You can ask anybody what the first amendment prevents infringement upon. They might know about one thing, freedom of speech, but incorrectly, tell you we are granted freedom of speech. Even then, most miss the other four inalienable rights the Constitution limits the federal government from violating.
Most are equally unaware of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and even of their status as militia under U.S. code. Most also don’t know that the third amendment prevents forced slumber parties with soldiers, and further assume that one’s right to be secure in his papers, person and effects can be waived by law – without a rebellion or invasion. They also believe that the seizure of life, liberty or property is okay without a warrant, just compensation or due process is legal.
What about the ninth amendment, the one that restricts powers granted to the federal government from being construed to deny rights retained by the states of the people?
That, too, was forgotten.
What should concern us the most is the tenth amendment. It denies the federal government from assuming any additional powers not granted to it by the Constitution. There are many historical reasons.
I didn’t catch the right of the government to pay farmers not to grow food in Article 1, Section 8. But FDR thought that raising the price of food when most of us were eating ketchup sandwiches was a great plan.
Our founders certainly didn’t write things like Social Security or Medicare into the Constitution. That’s not because they hated the disadvantaged.
It was because they foresaw that such programs would be abused, their trust funds raided and their recipients deprived. Some estimates have concluded Social Security recipients to be deprived of as much as 43% of their benefits. According to GAO comptroller David Walker, there is no “lock boxâ€.
Our founders also didn’t authorize a central bank of issue that would loan us our own money in Article 1, Section 8. That’s because such organizations habitually ruin a currency. In fact, the dollar we have them in 1913 is worth less than four cents.
After the Bank of England virtually destroyed their economy, which was the real impetus of the revolt, we learned a little more. After our failed experiment with the Continental Dollar, we figured it out.
What is truly disturbing is that the Federal Reserve is not a government entity, as ruled in Lewis v United States 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982).
Calling it “federal†did not make it federal. Federal Express is not federal, and Federal Pizza is not federal because it has pepperoni.
Congress then had the audacity to tell us that Article 1, Section 8 gave them authority delegate their power to a private entity, and they don’t need to oversee monetary policy. Given its absolute failure to safeguard the value of the dollar, we have again learned why the tenth amendment prohibited this.
I personally wonder how bad the economy has to get before people figure it out. Since the Federal Reserve is now fighting inflation with inflation, my suspicion is that people will get the bailouts they’re asking for – and they will get it hard.
Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 includes education. There is also, again, nothing in there about healthcare. We were number one in healthcare and education, but federal involvement took care of that.
Go ask a college graduate what the tenth amendment says. Then, ask that same graduate if he or she would object to the healthcare industry writing its own laws. The irony is that people seek to break up monopolies through government, when in fact, monopolies are only possible through government.
What should frighten us the most is that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. We’ve had a never ending series of wars since World War Two – but no declaration of war.
If the president is declaring war, and the tenth amendment bars any part of the government from assuming powers it does not have, when will it end? If you want to delegate that power, amend the Constitution, Congress. Don’t tell us you can write a law outside the parameters of your authority without extending them.
Will the Supreme Court eventually declare war? In a sad way, I’d prefer it. There’d be a chance for a dissenting opinion.
Contempt for the tenth amendment is truly limitless, and, not surprisingly, we’re broke. Instead of sending us checks as a bail out from monetary and fiscal mismanagement, which will come from raiding Social Security, Medicare or more inflation, Congress should go figure it out. I can’t think of a higher insult to the poorest, who suffer first and foremost from this, than to steal their wages while debasing their purchasing power and offshoring jobs.
As the reader may infer, this discussion could go on all day. I’ll just leave you with a brief list of things I’d like Congress to show me in Article 1, Section 8, or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. Show me –
- Drug war
- Tax credit for producing coal dipped in latex
- Paying Americans to run sweatshops overseas
- Registering churches with the IRS
- Study on sex life of mosquitoes
- Gun control
- Executive negotiation of treaties without Senate input
- The WTO telling us how to run our trade policy
- Using our armed forces on behalf of the UN
Dan Reale is a Libertarian Party candidate for Congress in Connecticut. Visit his website at http://realedealforcongress.angelfire.com
“The irony is that people seek to break up monopolies through government, when in fact, monopolies are only possible through government.”
This is not true. Monopolies are a nature outcome of capitalism. Governments have sought to impose public control on certain “natural” monopolies, where competition was precluded or inefficient (and only after a catastrophic failure of the private monopoly). The fact that those same governments have largely abdicated their (your -assuming you live in a democracy) oversight of those monopolies does not mean that they created those monopolies. Its nothing but a testament to the lengths to which money goes to protect itself. Which is not to say that governments can’t and don’t deliberately create monopolies. But they generally does so to assure equal access. Which has, sadly, devolved into equal access to your money, in no small part because of this empty libertarian mind-set that you can live in a society where your rights are legitimate despite your complete failure (by definition) to assume the messy responsibility of your vehemently demanded rights. Even sadder still, these publicly created monopolies, or at least their infrastructures, created largely with public assistance, are the favored targets of ‘privatizers’ (that is, banks- an industry more adept than any other -including all ‘extraction’ industries- at privatizing gains and socializing costs). So while you sit around bitching about how unfair it was that some risk/cost was proportional distributed to you, the money laughs up that collective good, and you libertarians applauded it as if you were Ayn Rands labia accepting Milton Freidman’s dusty seed.
But, yeah, right on. Its the government that’s the problem.
Use those long ignored, judicially compromised notions laid forth in our constitution, and the magna carta before that, use those rights you libertarians trip over yourselves lauding. Use them. But recognize that your true power rest in consumption. If every credit card holder in America withheld their monthly payment for three months, we could bring this beast to its knees.
Article I, Section VIII: “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”
Bam.
I have a couple og questions for the Author of this drivel, How do you explain the successes of the Social democratic Countries in North Western Europe, with massive govenment programs, and regulation of what capital can, and cannot do! these countries have a much average standard of living, lower infant mortality rates, less crime. lower unemployment, and higher life expectancy than the US. And why does these indicators grow worse for the US under Republican administrations.
I am not American, but the constitution were written in 1776, I read it as a revolutionary document.”That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” I would submit to you that if the founding fathers of America were alive today, they would be appaled that their ideas and thoughts that were relevant in their day 1776, was still not modified to reflect the fact that the world is a much more complex place today. As for where the money goes, 50% of the federal budget goes to defence, or rather offence as most of the world sees your military. My fond hope is that the people of the US again revolt against their opressors, and if you look the opressors are not hard to find. look among the 1 % richest among you
Yes! It is the right of the American people to abolish any government which becomes destructive of their safety and happiness, but “right does not make might.” Corrupt power is almost absolute and the American citizen is almost helpless to determine the course of his life, let alone his country. He is, from birth, indoctrinated to salute and work ever more and harder and inundated with propaganda he does not even know exists. He is taught that he can “be anything he can dream” and to blame himself if he fails. Even what he chooses to dream is carefully constructed by the powers that be. His access to information is media-controlled, his activities are monitored, and his dreams are carefully developed so as to sustain an ever increasing greed and dissatisfaction with who he is, what he has done, and most importantly, what he has. During World War II, everyone heard the mantra, “Use it up, wear it out, do without.” See how the mantras have changed! They are not only spoken by the President in the aftermath of 9-11 and touted as a means to forestall recession, but also are proudly sported on bumper stickers on cars headed to the mall. “He who dies with the most toys wins.” “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.” Consumption and blind loyalty have become virtues, even while common sense tells us they are dangerous. As an educator of 30 years, I have seen curriculum including critical thinking skills (especially that of propaganda techniques) almost disappear. Now the highest court in our land has ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to teachers, since we might have undue influence. Thus far, we have not been ordered to take hemlock, but those of us who question do not feel safe and are probably not safe. Worse though is the grief felt for the nation we love.
Author: Your words are pretty close to accurate, though the list at the end of your article shows the absurd extent to which Libertarians extend their beliefs. Where I believe that there is a role for both State and Federal government in our system, the Libertarian mindset is much more erring on the side of no government. Oversimplification, I know, but not far from reality.
Respondents: The author’s intent is to show how far we have swung from original intent to contemporary practice. To the one of you that quoted the Necessary and Proper Clause, many of the items that the author listed are neither necessary nor are the proper as instituted. He made the very good, very accurate point that Congress has not the Power to expand its own Powers. I believe we would all agree that this is neither necessary nor proper under the original intentions of the Framers. Agreed? A national government that is able to institute such programs as have been instituted since FDR is not found in our Constitution. However, a government where the States are able to amend the Constitution, delegating further Powers and responsibilities to the Federal Government, is a concept not foreign to our Constitution. So, then, where is ‘retirement planning’ in the Constitution? Or ‘healthcare’ or ‘healthcare insurance’? Or ‘education,’ as the author mentioned? They are absent because these would be items left to the States, or to the People. And if we now desire them to be Federal items, Article 5 provides the “necessary and proper” method of delegating such authority.
Foreign Respondent: Nice not having to have your own military, is it not? Oh, and 50% of our budget does not go to the military, national defense, or as you put it, offense. Quoting such figures when you obviously don’t know what the true figure is makes you appear totally, irrefutably a dunce. Get the right figure, include a term like “approximately,” or stick to the devil you know. How’s your healthcare system, btw? I can walk into any local hospital today and have my spleen removed if I desire…how long is your waiting list? The idea of government running hospitals and schools should make us all wince and cause flashbacks of Hitler and Stalin to pass through our collective memories.
The founders left the Constitution intentionally vague so that it would last; they had no idea what issues would face the new government. The 10th amendment was designed to ensure that the state representatives who had to ratify the document would not see the Federal government as a threat to the states’ primacy.
I do agree with your frustration though.
The first thing is you have to look at the ROOT cause to all of our problems.
Before the war of Independence, who controlled the new found land. the Kings & Queens of mainly England, France, Spain.
Well then after the war, did these kings & queens abandon there investments in this new found gold mind, no they did not.
So that great piece of paper we hold so dearly is only useful as long as it is granted to by the predecessors of mainly old King George of England.
What is Fee Simple, answer a deed to a property that is allowed to possess but must maintain TAX to keep possession of. It belongs to the KING.
This site listed below has really made me think for myself why the USA is as it is and why it will be directed by the predecessors of the King http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/index.html
It truly opened my eyes to the possibilities of why we think the illusions of freedom rings, but at they same time it opened my eye to the lies our families have lived and taught us to believe the illusions and therefore we are just not aware of the horror .
Thanks for letting comment.
I’m glad I came back and checked out some of the feedback. A lot of it was insightful, but some of it leads me to believe the point was missed. Allow me to elaborate.
The point of the article was that government decided to just do whatever. We’ve just forgone the very necessary and very legal process of simply amending the document. The idea behind amending the Constitution is to prevent the exact type of situation we see today.
The Constitution is a very specific administrative document that consists of interlocking if/then statements. It seems vague for three reasons –
1) Education has failed. The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers are no longer required reading.
2) Society is now operating on a whole series of assumptions that simply aren’t true. For example, America being a “democracyâ€. Article Four, Section Four says we’re guaranteed “a republican form of governmentâ€. And no, that’s not the insane neocons version of republican.
3) A lot of moneyed interests across the entire industrial and political spectrum went on the mother of all PR blitzes to change the definition of wording and terminology. They’ve parsed the whole subject of the Constitution to erode its value to get what they wanted.
Rick’s painted a very broad brush when it comes to what libertarians think. Maybe I disagree with Friedman. Rick doesn’t know because he didn’t ask. He assumed. But he did assume correctly that we’re all about using our own consumption power to take our proverbial ball home – which I do. I found that big media used the FCC to monopolize the airwaves and cheapen the content, so I canceled it years ago. I also cut up my credit card. I’m not about to ask Rick to do these things because it’s not my place. It’s just the way we approach monopolies once their abuse makes them a pariah. In fact, that’s why they fail eventually. If anything, the internet is doing that to mainstream media.
To T., he needs to cite which powers are vested. A lot of people use the general welfare clause the same way. Again, that’s why we have a process of amending the document. Also, the Ninth Amendment forbids the enumeration of certain rights to the government from being construed so as to deny rights retained by the people.
Mr. Carlson correctly assesses that, yes, things are bad. I myself call our department of defense a department of offense the way it is being used. However, he forgets that the whole point, and a lot of the history behind that point, involves not asking permission and using other powers not granted to the government. Again, we should go through the process of amending the Constitution if we want a central bank of issue. That is the very source of the power our “oppressors†wield. Instead of asking for money for oppressing the world and sacrificing soldiers, they just go ahead and extort an inflation tax – then lie about how much they counterfeited. Remember, we had actual growth, growth shared according to one’s contribution. Today, that growth depends upon how close you can position yourself to the money spigot. Unfortunately, Carlson is dead in assuming everything is so dramatically different that human nature no longer applies. In fact, Jefferson, Franklin and many others fought the same evil out of necessity. The Bank of England ordered Parliament to forbid the issuance of colonial script, which led to the real causes of the revolution. If anything, our founders would have most of Congress in jail were they alive today.
David Smith hit the nail on the head.
I think James is right that the 10th Amendment reassured states’ fears. However, it included individuals purposefully. Again, the thoughts and clarifications of our founders are well documented. The document is, again, precise. For example, the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and insurrection the public safety may require it. Then, the neocons rammed the Military Commissions Act through. I’m not sure if someone else saw it, but I didn’t see an invasion or a rebellion going on.
Jeferson thought we should have a new constitutional convention every 20 years to clear up problems and corruption that might arise. I like the idea in theory, but with today’s politicians who knows what would happen.
To whoever wrote this, “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,” you left out a few things:
“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
Foregoing meaning: : “listed, mentioned, or occurring before”.
So Congress has “implied powers” to carry into execution the powers that were previously listed in Article 1 Section 8. But this clause limits Congress by stating that these laws made in pursuance of executing the forgoing powers must be “necessary and proper” to executing those powers.
Jordan – excellent point, and this is even more specific on how Congressional powers are strictly limited.