March 12, 2009 - In disseminating my articles, particularly those which deal with the specific powers granted our government by the Constitution, I am often told that our Constitution is irrelevant in our modern world.

Today, I heard a few new ones. I received an e-mail from one of my readers in which he told me of how a family member had told him that, “The Constitution is naive, quaint, unreasonable, impractical, and out of date for our modern times.”

When I hear people talk like that, I have to ask myself, do they really understand the purpose of the Constitution?

I wonder, did anyone alive today attend the Constitutional Convention, back in 1787? How then could anyone presume to understand the intent of the founders in writing that document, unless that person was to refer to the writings of those who participated in its creation? To do so is akin to presuming to know the will of God without ever having read a single passage of the Bible.

Patrick Henry, was fervent in his belief that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

In the Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782, Thomas Jefferson reiterated that sentiment when he said, “[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”

People are under the misconception that the Constitution grants government unlimited powers to act on our behalf. Fifty years after the drafting of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration and Protest of Virginia, on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States and on the Violations of them. From that document I quote, “The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”

It is painfully clear that our founders believed that our Constitution was not an express grant of unlimited power to the newly created federal government. Quite the opposite, it contained a few limited powers, which when our government exceeded, their acts became null and void.

In 1798, in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts signed by President John Adams, Vice President Thomas Jefferson secretly wrote the Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson argued, “That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers…”

Read that again if you must, but Jefferson felt that if the government were to be the sole decider of what powers it could wield, then we would be governed by despots. For those of you not familiar with the term despot, it is defined as, “a ruler with absolute power and authority, or a person exercising power tyrannically”

With increasing frequency, I find that people are completely at ease with their government assuming powers which are nowhere to be found within the Constitution. While it is true that those in our nations capital were elected to represent the wishes of the people, their power, nevertheless, extends no further than what the Constitution clearly states.

However, there is a way to alter the Constitution, so that if the people desire to grant their government some new, clearly defined power, it can be accomplished in a legal manner.

George Washington make that clear when he said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

With all that being said, let’s just for a moment, play devils advocate. Let’s say that the Constitution is outdated, that it is, in fact, no longer relevant. From that moment forward, our federal government would cease to exist, as it is the Constitution which grants our government its life.

Barack Obama would no longer be able to magically fix our economy. Hillary Clinton would have to move back to Arkansas instead of trotting around the globe. Nancy Pelosi, who knows what she would end up doing, maybe hosting a talk show? Ted Kennedy would go back to Boston and live out the rest of his days in pubs, picking up women.

Suddenly the War in Iraq and Afghanistan would be over, as there would be no Department of Defense, and no military. All our bases overseas would shut down, and all our troops would come home.

I would no longer have to pay federal income taxes and social security tax. When someone in my family died, I would pay no estate tax. The Federal Reserve would also dissolve, as the states would once again have the power to coin gold and silver for currency. In one swift stroke of the pen, inflation would go almost vanish, as we no longer would be using an overabundance of worthless fiat currency.

Basically, we would revert to fifty independent sovereign states, with no federal interference in our internal affairs. Sounds like a pretty nifty idea, doesn’t it? However, their is a dark side to this as well.

Without a Constitution, there would be no Bill of Rights. State governments would then be free to pass any number of laws which could violate rights that you now take for granted.

Religion could be totally banned in one state, while in another the possession of guns could be banned. Another state my prohibit the writing, or speaking out for that matter, of anti government sentiments. (I certainly wouldn’t want to live in that state)

Can you imagine the chaos? There would be so many laws, each conflicting with one another, that it would be next to impossible for a person to know what laws they might be breaking in one state, for something that is perfectly legal in their state.

The best solution is to keep our Constitution, as is. It is the glue that binds us together, and as I recently said, to tamper with its principles is something we do at risk of great peril.

There can be no doubt that many people consider our Constitution old fashioned and outdated. To those I would like to offer one last quote from Thomas Jefferson for them to ponder, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

Our country survived just fine for over two hundred years with the Constitution, as originally written. Our problems began to appear when our government began to violate the principles contained within that document. Instead of changing it, or throwing it out the window, have you not considered that maybe if we return to the principles contained within it, our problems might just go away? Think about that before you say the Constitution is irrelevant. It is people who open their mouths without thinking that I find irrelevant.
 
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal

The Ross Archive on The Federal Observer