|
|
|
Restore the
Constitution If it is true, as Robert Service wrote in his spellbinding poem The Cremation of Sam McGee, that "a promise made is a debt unpaid," then the federal government's gargantuan $5 trillion national debt must be dwarfed by all of the broken and failed promises of politicians. How many times have we experienced more taxes instead of the promised tax cuts, more deficits instead of the promised balanced budgets, more bureaucratic controls instead of the promised regulatory relief, and (in general) more government instead of the promised slashing of leviathan? How many times have we been assured that "the era of big government is over," only to discover that it has not yet reached its apex? Like its predecessors, the new 105th Congress elected in November has piled up its share of promises. Yet, in spite of the poor performance of previous Congresses, there is no reason why the debts cannot be paid. In fact, a realistic payment plan already exists, a plan to which every congressman swears allegiance. But that plan is not a party platform or a political stump speech. It is not the "Contract With America." It is a much older document that remains timeless because it is based on immutable principles of governance that were once well understood in this country but are now largely forgotten. It is the Constitution of the United States. The oath that every congressman takes at the beginning of each new two-year congressional term -- an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution -- is the most important promise of all. Fulfill that one promise, and there is little doubt that the budget would be balanced because the government would eventually shrink to about one-fifth of its present size. Abide by the Constitution, and an unshackled American free enterprise system would usher in a new era of economic prosperity that government planners could never achieve. Pay that one debt, and America would have good and honest government limited to its proper constitutional role. This is not to say that other political promises are not significant or worthwhile. But their worthiness should be judged on the basis of their compatibility with the supreme law of the land that enabled a backward wilderness nation to become the envy of the collectivist old world. Times may have changed, but the principles embodied in the Constitution are as applicable today as in 18th-century America. Those principles include a recognition that government must have sufficient power to protect unalienable rights, but not enough power to abrogate those rights. Delegated Powers Because of the limiting features of the Constitution, the federal government possesses relatively few powers, all of which are explicitly enumerated. As James Madison explained in The Federalist, No. 45, "The powers delegated by the ... Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Those delegated powers "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." On the other hand, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." This concept of federalism provides a double barrier against encroaching tyranny; the powers of government are not only divided horizontally among three branches of the federal government, but vertically between the federal government and the states. There are no non-enumerated federal powers. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist, No. 78, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." The enumerated powers of Congress are listed principally in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet it is not an exaggeration to state that the typical congressman violates the clear provisions of the Constitution on a routine basis since most of what the government does these days is unconstitutional. Examples include the food stamp program, education assistance, agricultural price supports, subsidized housing, foreign aid, and (yes) even the massive Social Security and Medicare programs that now consume about one-third of the federal budget. Complete restoration of the Constitution would mean the elimination (or privatization) of all of these programs. Of course, while some programs such as foreign aid should be eliminated immediately, others (such as Social Security) would have to be phased out gradually in recognition of the commitments that the government has made and the dependency that has developed as a consequence of those commitments. Only by moving boldly in this direction can the budget be balanced and sound government achieved. Merely slowing down the rate of growth in government, as previous Congresses have done, will not prevent government from eventually acquiring total power, but will only delay it. The fact that decades of encroaching socialism cannot be eradicated overnight is no excuse for not reversing direction and beginning the long trek back to freedom. First Steps A good first step for the 105th Congress to undertake would be to chain legislative actions to the Constitution by requiring that any bill that is introduced cite the specific portion of the Constitution (the article, section, and clause numbers) giving it legitimacy. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced this very proposal under the title Enumerated Powers Act in the previous Congress. Although the measureever came up for a vote, it gained the support of 103 co-sponsors and a belated promise from House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that he would allow it to be voted on in the new Congress. Capitol Hill sources inform THE NEW AMERICAN that there is an excellent chance that this proposal will be incorporated into the new rules determining how the 105th Congress conducts its proceedings. If that proves not to be the case, congressmen should be challenged to support the Shadegg legislation (which would then be reintroduced). Either way, congressmen should constantly be asked to cite the specific constitutional power(s) justifying whatever legislation they sponsor. Congress cannot restore sound government, however, unless it reclaims its constitutionally authorized powers that have been usurped by the other two branches of government. Even though Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that Congress possesses all legislative powers, both the Executive and the Judiciary have effectively become quasi-legislative bodies through their freedom-threatening regulations, orders, and rulings. Congressmen must be encouraged to reclaim their exclusive legislative authority; the constitutional means for achieving this end can easily be implemented and are explained in the articles on pages 26 and 29. An example of usurped congressional power is the President's deployment of American troops in "police actions" without the constitutionally required declaration of war and without even the solicitation of congressional approval. The Founding Fathers never intended that a single man possess the awesome authority to plunge the nation into the crucible of war, and Congress must immediately end this dangerous abuse of power (see page 27). Congressmen must also be encouraged not to do any further damage to the delicate system of checks and balances by surrendering additional congressional powers to the Executive. The line-item veto legislation adopted by the previous Congress is an example of such a transfer of power. Designed ostensibly to create another check on spending, the line-item veto enables the President to interject himself in the legislative process by picking and choosing which parts of an integrated bill he would preserve or discard. He could use this immense power to reward or punish congressmen for supporting or opposing his programs by, for instance, overlooking a congressman's pet pork barrel project in exchange for a key vote. Fortunately, since every new law supersedes existing law, Congress could circumvent this new veto power simply by writing language into appropriations bills exempting them from the line-item veto. Ironically, congressional impetus for the transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch has generally come from GOP "conservatives." (The line-item veto, for instance, was a plank in Gingrich's "Contract With America.") Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who himself has supported many unconstitutional programs, was nevertheless on target when he remarked last April: "The Legislative branch appears to have lost the energy needed to zealously guard the powers which the Framers so carefully preserved for the people's branch.... The perverse solution for making government more efficient and more simple appears to be to cede power from the people's duly elected representatives and, again, in the name of efficiency, to transfer power to the Executive, the President, who is, of course, not directly elected by the people." Our congressmen must reclaim this "lost energy." Convincing them to do so should be relatively easy since they have a vested interest in guarding their powers from the encroachments of the other two branches of government. A much more difficult task, but one that is at least as vital, is to convince them to stop committing their own unconstitutional abuses (that is, voting for unconstitutional legislation). In light of what must be done, it is indeed tragic that the Establishment-defined congressional debate places so much emphasis on amending the Constitution while ignoring the unconstitutionality of myriad federal programs. Examples include proposed constitutional amendments to balance the budget and to limit congressional terms. Such "solutions" are based on a premise that the U.S. Constitution is the problem when in fact the problem is a lack of adherence to the Constitution. Why add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution when the deficits are caused by unconstitutional spending? And why limit congressional terms, thereby creating a large pool of "lame duck" congressmen with no accountability to the voters, when the problem is a lack of understanding of constitutional principles? Key to Freedom Over the next two years, every congressman should be held accountable for how well he fulfills his promises -- in particular his promise to uphold the Constitution. Regardless of how far the 105th Congress may fall short of the ideal, however, it would be unfair to blame the result on Congress alone. Because we elect our office holders, we ultimately get the kind of government we deserve. How can we expect a politician to deliver on his campaign promises when we pay no attention to what he does between elections, or when we listen only to his rhetoric while ignoring his record? The key to freedom is to create sufficient understanding among the American people. If voters are sufficiently informed, they will more probably vote for candidates who promise a return to constitutional government and will hold the feet of these candidates to the fire once they are elected. The entire political process -- the issues that are debated in a campaign, the promises that a candidate makes, and a politician's actual performance in office -- is determined ultimately by the understanding of the voters. There are growing signs that the needed awakening is taking place. Witness the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. (The fact that the Gingrich-led revolutionaries attempted to slay the big government dragon with a toothpick instead of a sword does not alter the reality that the American people demanded change.) Witness Mr. Clinton's signing of the 1996 welfare overhaul bill. Granted, this legislation did not end federal welfare as the bill's critics claimed, but it does at least cut planned spending by $54 billion over six years compared to previous law. Who could have imagined that welfare champion Bill Clinton would respond to the growing sentiment for less government by signing it? And just imagine the extent to which most politicians will respond as that sentiment continues to grow and the American electorate becomes better informed! The public sentiment should impact congressmen even more than the President, in fact, because of congressmen's smaller constituencies and (in the case of House members) more frequent elections. Moreover, Congress is actually the most important of the three branches of government since it is the only one empowered to legislate while the President's role with regard to enacted legislation is merely that of an administrator. Devoting less attention to electing a "good" President and more attention to improving Congress would do much toward restoring good government. The articles that follow include additional advice for Congress, all of them based on the principle of restoring the Constitution. We encourage readers to present this advice to their own U.S. representative and senators, and, whenever practical, to ask them to read this special report for themselves.
|
|
