Promote the General Welfare

A comment was made on my blog yesterday which brought up the fact that, though the preamble to the Constitution has no basis in law, it is used while interpreting the role of the federal government. One phrase in particular is used as an excuse for everything the federal government does to expand it's own power.

The preamble reads, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

That general welfare clause has been used as a justification for many new programs and wasteful spending over the years. Isn't our current push for government run health care touted as "promoting the general welfare"? But what about another clause? What about that little thing about "ensure the blessings of liberty"? Have we decided that some of these clauses are more important than others? If so, how did the general welfare become the top dog in the prioritization process? So important that we can push liberty and justice aside for it? Considering that our pledge of allegiance says with liberty and justice for all, not for the general welfare of all, shouldn't liberty and justice be a little higher up on the totem pole?

Their legal interpretation of the preamble was this; "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

The annotation uses the common defense as an example, but what about using the general welfare as an example. Doesn't the above interpretation mean that the federal government CANNOT use that phrase in order to expand it's own power, or to create power for itself. Yet isn't that exactly what it has been doing for years? The quote above says "no one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress.." But that doesn't appear to be true since many people, many, many people, believe that it DOES enlarge the powers of Congress. And Congress is way more interested in their power than our liberty. So now we are pushing liberty aside, and in some cases justice, in order to promote an incorrect interpretation of the general welfare. And we're using that incorrect interpretation to create power where it was not given, nor intended, in the Constitution.

The annotation also says that it should be used to see if some legislation is working against that statement more than if it's working towards it. Couldn't the argument be made that cap and trade is against the general welfare? Explain to me, if you can, how increasing everybody's energy costs, putting thousands out of work, and giving the government control over free enterprise is a promotion of the general welfare. Because, frankly, I don't get it.

The fact is that the pre-amble to the Constitution should not be used as a justification for any law or any new program. Those items listed there are already covered in the body of the Constitution in the powers delegated for each branch. And if the power is not designated, then it is not a power that exists. No matter what the preamble says.

The Textbook of Freedom

Needing to be reminded, after all of the apologies for our arrogance, of what a great nation we truly are, I decided to read Reagan's speech where he referred to us as a shining city on a hill. I was just 14 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term in office, but I remember clearly going, as a nation, from demoralized and depressed as we dealt with the fall out from Vietnam, the economic problems and the energy crisis of the Carter years, into the hope and pride that Reagan instilled.

Whether you agree with his economic policies or anything else about him, Reagan, in his speeches, reminded us of why we should be proud and why our nation was great. I found a story that he tells regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence that I would like to share.

You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their Independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more. "

For that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. Is it? Or are we relegating it to a piece of interesting, but irrelevant, piece of American memorabilia?

We should all know the text of the declaration, and more importantly, what it really means and represents. Everything that is done by our government should be examined and compared against those truths laid out in the textbook for freedom. Do you, as an individual, hold these truths to be self-evident? Or do you believe they are up for negotiation based on what the government promises you in return?