by Rob Natelson, Electric City Weblog
You would think it wouldnâ€™t be too much to ask for the people who serve in government or who presume to influence our public policy to have a clue about what the Constitution means.
On that subject, the Washington Post syndicate is featuring a column by â€œprogressiveâ€ Paul Begala, once a Clinton health care advisor and now a part-time professor at Georgetown.Â
The gist of the column is that if it isnâ€™t politically possible for the feds to completely take over health care now, they should at least grab as much of it as they can.
On the Constitution, Begala writes:
â€œThe Founders gave us a standard: â€˜a more perfect Unionâ€™Â Itâ€™s an odd phrase; we donâ€™t generally speak of something becoming â€˜more perfect.â€™Â I believe it means that we have a duty, every generation, to make progress.â€
As students of the Constitution know,Â in eighteenth-century English, the word â€œperfectâ€ usually meant â€œcomplete.â€Â The Framers were stating in the Constitutionâ€™s Preamble that the new union was to be more complete than the union had been under the Articles of Confederation.
Free government requires that policy makers understand the basic law under which they operate.
Begalaâ€™s column is but one example of a disturbing tendency among policy-makers and intellectuals to dodge the work it takes to understand our basic law, and speculate instead.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar.Â (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
Latest posts by Rob Natelson (see all)
- What “Taxes” Are (And Aren’t) Under the Constitution, and the Implications for Obamacare - March 27, 2016
- What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - February 10, 2016
- English Law and the Constitution - January 22, 2016