The Perversion And Destruction Of The Constitution
By Robert Greenslade
Ours is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former proceeded the latter, which was created by their agency.
He went on to state that the "Government of the United States" is federal, as opposed to national, because:
[I]t is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.
This is why the American people, as comprising one nation, did not ratify the Constitution and do not have the power to amend it. Only the States, as the exclusive parties to the contract between themselves, have the authority to modify the powers of their agent, the federal government.
An amendment of the Constitution requires a three-fourths vote of the States. Through the amendment process, the 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States, with a majority of the population. Neither Congress, nor the American people, as comprising one nation, has a voice in this process. This proves conclusively that the parties to the Constitution are the several States, not the whole people as comprising one nation. It also proves that the powers of the federal government pertain to the States collectively, not the people individually. Thus, from a constitutional standpoint, the federal government was never granted any direct or general legislative authority over the people of the several States.
It should be apparent to any constitutionally astute American, that the Constitution and system of limited government established by that document have been perverted from their original intent. In the author's opinion, the origin of this condition can be traced, in large part, to the emergence of political parties and their thirst for power. When the Constitution was written and adopted, political parties were more philosophical and virtually unknown in the sense that they are today. Thus, the Framers did not contemplate any restraints on political parties. They believed those individuals in government service would be individuals of character who put the Constitution and the interests of the country before any partisan issues.
In fact, early American leaders viewed political parties with suspicion and disdain. In 1787, Alexander Hamilton stated: "[n]othing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. Two years later, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[i]f I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
The contempt for political parties continued into the 19th century. Several Presidents condemned the existence of political parties. Twelve years before he was elected President, Andrew Jackson stated: "[n]ow is the time to eliminate the monster called party spirit." In 1822, President James Monroe characterized political parties as "the curse of the country."
Since their inception, political parties have become a serious threat to the system of government established by the Founders because they have made the acquisition and retention of governmental power paramount to the Constitution. Duty, honor, country, has been replaced with duty to the party, honor the party, and party before country.
In his farewell address, President George Washington warned the American people of the dangers of political parties. He stated that party spirit "agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms" and "kindles the animosity of one part against another." Washington was a prophet. This is exactly how the democrats and republicans maintain their political power. They pit one segment of society against another with exaggerations and falsehoods designed to divide the American people. After they incite and divide the people, they take sides and offer themselves and their party's agenda as the solution to the so-called problem. Political parties have become so adept at orchestrating this charade that being an American has become secondary to political ideology and party affiliation.
Another loser in this process is the Constitution and system of limited government established by that document. There was a time in this country when the Constitution was at the core of any debate on legislation being proposed in Congress. Modern political parties have made sure that this is no longer the case. When was the last time you heard a member of Congress seriously question the federal government's constitutional authority to enact the legislation being discussed? The goal of politicians is to agitate the American people so that thought and reason is replaced by emotion and fear. Politicians realize that a populace, incited by fear and blinded by passion will never pause to question the constitutionality of legislation being advanced by the political parties.
Politicians and government officials, primarily at the federal level, have been working for many years to transform the Constitution from a purely governmental document, into a constitution that more closely resembles a societal or social document. The motivation for this attempt to politically alter the Constitution can be summed-up in the words of Alexander Hamilton-"a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will."
The operative word in Hamilton's statement is the word "power." The Constitution was written in a manner that defines and limits the exercise of power by the federal government. If political parties can continue their success in transforming the Constitution into a social document through the establishment of a multitude of federal social programs, they will eventually circumvent the limitations placed on federal power by the Constitution. When given a choice between the establishment or continuation of a federal social program and the preservation of the system of limited government established by the Constitution, the American people seem to favor the former. It is inconceivable, in modern America, that the people would vote for any candidate other than the one who promised to continue or expand these programs. Federal politicians operate on the principle that a majority of the American people will never voice a serious objection to an unconstitutional expansion of power if government is giving them a benefit in return.
The attempt to politically transform the Constitution is a work in progress and nothing short of an all out assault on the federal system of government established by the Founders. In his farewell address, President Washington spoke, unknowingly, to the modern assault on the Constitution by political parties:
One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
If politicians can continue to undermine the federal system of government established by the Constitution, they will eventually obliterate the state governments and transfer all power to a central government controlled exclusively by political parties. Thus, their power over the American people will be absolute.
The Founders created a system where the powers of government are divided between two distinct governments. James Madison, who is recognized as the father of the Constitution, expressed this principle in Federalist Essay No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former 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. 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.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.
This might be the most concise and definitive statement ever written distinguishing the constitutional powers of the federal government from those of the state governments. Since the adoption of the Constitution, there has been a movement by those in favor of a national form of government to obliterate this distinction and make the States totally subservient to a central government.
During the debates in the New York convention contemplating ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton warned of the consequences if the States ever lost their powers:
The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.
The Constitution and system of government established by that document could never be altered through the legislative process alone. In order to institute a political transformation of the Constitution, the politicians in control of the legislative branch of the federal government needed assistance from another group to legitimize their efforts. Thomas Jefferson identified this group in his writings:
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.
The political transformation of the Constitution and consolidation of power in a central government is being accomplished, primarily, through a judicial rewrite of the Constitution by the federal judiciary. Not only is the federal judiciary changing the meaning of words in the Constitution, but they are redefining various clauses in a manner that dramatically expands federal power. In a letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819, Jefferson wrote:
We find the judiciary, on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation. [I deny].the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the Constitution. The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
This is precisely what is happening. The Constitution and federal system of government created by that document are being twisted and shaped into a new form by political appointees. It should be remembered that federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They can only be removed from office through the impeachment process. This process is completely controlled by the same political parties who put them in office in the first place. The American people have no direct voice in this process. Federal judges are totally unanswerable to the American people for their appointment or continuation in office. Yet, these same judges, according to political parties and their governmental appointees, have the constitutional authority to define the extent of federal power relative to the life, liberty and property of the American people.
The claim that the Framers granted the federal judiciary the power to define the meaning of the Constitution is preposterous. The federal government was created by the Constitution and derives all of its power from that document. If a branch of the federal government possessed the power of interpretation, then its discretion, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of federal power. This would result in judicial discretion replacing the Constitution as the rule of law for the federal government. It would also be contrary to the separation of powers doctrine because the judiciary, through its decisions, could diminish or abrogate the powers of the other two branches of government.
Any assertion that the Constitution needs to be interpreted or explained is an absurdity on its face since the history of the proceedings in the Federal Convention and the State Ratifying Conventions are readily available for anyone to read. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that laws are to be written in a manner that allows people of common intelligence to understand them. If a law is written in a convoluted manner, it is void on its face. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land as far as the constitutional powers of the federal government are concerned. It was written in plain English and means what it says. If the Constitution needs constant judicial interpretation, then it cannot be construed as a legal document. James Madison addressed this principle in Federalist Essay No. 62 when he wrote: "[l]aw is defined to be a rule of action: but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Many federal politicians claim the Constitution is a living document that should be liberally interpreted to fit the needs of modern society. This is an open invitation to tyranny. Not only would this make politicians and the federal judiciary supreme and above the Constitution, but it would make the Constitution trivial as a written document because political ideology would determine its meaning. This would also convert the federal government from a government of laws, to a government of men.
The Framers created a mechanism for granting the federal government additional power. That process is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document only in the sense that it can be modified at any time by way of the amendment process noted above. Unfortunately, most federal politicians cannot be bothered with this process when it comes to expanding their power. They prefer the judicial re-interpretation and expansion process to the constitutional process. Politicians simply pass the law and hope it will not be challenged or their political appointees in the federal judiciary will find a way to make the law "comport" with the Constitution.
Anyone who has witnessed the confirmation process for a federal judge, especially at the Supreme Court level, realizes that this process is nothing short of a political circus with political parties as the ringmaster. Nominees are closely scrutinized for their political ideology by both parties. This is especially the case when one party is in control of the presidency and the other in control of the Senate. In some cases, the confirmation process is held up for years while the parties jockey for political power or await an upcoming election. Needless to say, any prospective justice who expressed a desire to strictly adhere to the Constitution and the principle of limited government would be given a one way ticket out of town by both political parties.
The Founders intended the judiciary to be nonpartisan. That is one of the reasons they are appointed for life and required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Political parties have made perspective judicial appointees beholden to them for nomination and confirmation. It's no wonder some appointees are beginning to resemble political partisans. They could never reach or get past the confirmation process if they remained politically neutral in their views. Being indebted to political parties for nomination and confirmation to the federal bench raises a question. Where does the loyalty of the federal judiciary lie-with the politicians and political parties who nominated and confirmed them, or with the preservation of the Constitution and the system of limited government established by that document?
Another component of the attempt to politically transform the federal system of government into a consolidated system involves the state governments. The Founders intended the state governments to protect their citizens from any attempt by the federal government to overstep its constitutional authority. Since political parties have taken over the political process, the States have all but abandoned their duty to protect the people from federal encroachment. Many politicians at the state level have aspirations of federal grandeur. Thus, they are reluctant take any steps to block federal intrusions because they don't want to obstruct their party's political agenda.
Other than the amendment process, the States most powerful check on the exercise or abuse of federal power was the Senate. The Senate, as originally conceived, was appointed by the legislatures of the several States and represented their interests in Congress. No law could be passed without the consent of the States in the Senate. Thus, the States' representatives could block any attempt by the House of Representatives to unconstitutionally expand federal power through the legislative process.
The Senate also confirms all federal judges. No judge could be appointed to the federal bench without the approval of the States in the Senate. The House of Representatives has no voice in this process. If the President nominated a judge who the States perceived as a threat to the Constitution or the federal system of government established by the States, they could block the appointment.
With the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, political parties put an end to State control of the Senate. The States no longer have a voice in the government they created for their mutual welfare. Since the adoption of this Amendment, members of the Senate are elected directly by the people through an election process controlled exclusively by political parties. The Senate is now beholden to the people and political parties for their tenure in office. Thus, the States no longer have control of the branch of Congress that was to represent their interests and secure their sovereignty.
Political parties have also made the American education system a pawn in their attempt to transform the Constitution. It is no coincidence that the general lack of knowledge concerning the Constitution and system of limited government established by that document parallels the move by political parties to commandeer the American education system. Civics classes have become insignificant when compared to such important educational functions like teaching students to properly place a condom on a cucumber. In the author's opinion, political parties are turning the American education system into political indoctrination camps with social issues and political correctness as the core curriculum. If politicians can keep students moving through the education system ignorant of the true nature of Constitution and the federal system of government established by the Framers, they will never pose a serious threat to an unconstitutional expansion of federal power when they reach adulthood.
The Founders intended government, both state and federal, to be subservient to the people. However, since the emergence of political parties and their ascension to power, the American people are becoming subservient to government. If the people do not take the initiative and educate themselves on the Constitution and use that knowledge to control the exercise of power by political parties, political parties will continue to use the power of the federal government to control the people. There is no middle ground in this contest. Either the American people will preserve their rights and safeguard their freedom, or political parties will use the power of government to take them away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------