By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.
Apart from being the daughter of an assassinated U.S. president, one of Caroline Kennedy’s supposed qualifications to be a U.S. senator is that she is a “defender of the Constitution.”
I’m ambivalent about people who claim to be “defenders of the Constitution.” First, most of them really aren’t. And second, though I’ve spent many years arguing that America should return to following its Constitution, I’m no longer sure that it’s a good idea.
I won’t deal with the desirability of having any more Kennedys in government office except to observe that it’s only by comparison with the Bushes that the Kennedys seem like patriots. Ms. Kennedy is not entitled to high office merely because of her last name. Many Americans do believe that they live under an absolute monarchy and they yearn to be ruled by a hereditary royal class (as opposed to the British system of constitutional monarchy), but that’s not the American system.
Defender of the Constitution?
Ms. Kennedy is certainly an intelligent woman. She seems like a fairly decent person. However, she is not serious about defending the Constitution. If she were, she would not make it a centerpiece of her campaign for senator that she will help the state of New York get “its share” of unconstitutionally collected and allocated federal money. Moreover, if she were serious about the Constitution, she would support abolition of most of the federal government because it is not Constitutionally authorized — that is, it is unconstitutional.
Unlike the British Constitution, which evolved over many centuries and is embodied in many different documents and institutions, the U.S. Constitution is a specific written document. It has evolved both by amendment and by re-interpretation, but the text is still there to be read.
Enumerated Powers for the Federal Government
Americans tend to forget — or if they went to government schools, they never knew — that the U.S. Constitution set up a system of enumerated powers for America’s federal government and un-enumerated rights for the states and the people.
Under that system, the U.S. federal government is forbidden to engage any activities except those that:
- Are specifically authorized by the Constitution, or
- Are clearly necessary to carry out the Constitutionally-authorized activities.
In other words, the legitimate powers of the federal government are “enumerated” (listed) by the Constitution. However, the rights of the states and the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The states and the people have not only specific rights listed in the Constitution, but also have all their historic rights from tradition, the British common law, and settled practice.
The general welfare clause, which states that the Constitution is intended “to promote the general welfare,” is often used as a catch-all justification for federal government activities. However, the general welfare clause states a goal of the Constitution, not a power of the federal government. It doesn’t authorize anything.
In 1787, the American population was divided about whether or not to adopt the new Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which had governed the United States up to that point. Supporters of the new Constitution wrote a series of essays called The Federalist Papers in which they answered objections to the Constitution.
The authors of The Federalist Papers opposed adopting “the Bill of Rights,” that is, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution which list specific rights of the states and the people. The main reason they opposed a bill of rights was that the federal government was already forbidden to do anything not listed in the Constitution.
For example, the Constitution did not list any powers for the federal government to suppress free speech, or to search people’s homes without probable cause and a search warrant from a judge. Because it didn’t list such powers, the government was not allowed to do those things. What would have been the point adding amendments to forbid things that the government couldn’t do anyway? In Federalist Paper 84, U.S. founding father Alexander Hamilton wrote:
I go further and affirm that bills of rights … are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Hamilton’s fears were well-founded. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the fact that the Constitution lists specific rights has enabled supporters of oppressive government (who falsely call themselves “conservatives”) to claim that Americans have only the rights listed in the Constitution. American founding father Thomas Jefferson, who often disagreed with Alexander Hamilton, agreed completely that the federal government had only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and no legitimate power to infringe on the rights of the states or the people:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. (Thomas Jefferson, February 1791, advising U.S. President George Washington that a government-established national bank would violate the Constitution)
We have taken many thousands of steps “beyond the boundaries” of the Constitution, to the point at which the U.S. federal government claims not only unlimited power at home, but presumes to dictate to countries around the world what they may and may not do. Federal agencies and activities not authorized by the Constitution — and therefore forbidden under the doctrine of enumerated powers — include (and these are only a few):
- All wars started without a declaration of war by Congress (including those against Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which attacked or threatened the United States)
- Direct taxation of citizens of the states (Constitutional amendment never ratified)
- National laws about abortion (whether pro or con)
- National laws about religion (whether supporting it or forbidding it)
- National laws about affirmative action and “diversity” (whether pro or con)
- The FBI
- The IRS
- The CIA
- The National Security Agency
- The Department of Education
- The Department of Health and Human Services
- The Social Security Administration
- All federally-operated welfare programs
- Direct election of U.S. senators (Constitutional amendment never ratified)
- The U.S. “Patriot Act”
- The Transportation Security Agency
- The Department of Homeland Security
- Torturing prisoners (including torturing prisoners by shocking them with Tasers)
- Wiretapping people without independent court review and a court order
- Caging protestors in “free speech zones”
Moreover, when Jefferson was writing, Congress was seen as the one and only law-making body in the federal government. Hence, when he talks about limits on the powers of Congress or the United States, he means limits on the powers of the federal government. No one among the founders even imagined that the executive branch and its agencies would be laws unto themselves. That, too, is a power not listed in the Constitution — and thus is Constitutionally forbidden.
In essence, contemporary political theory has turned the U.S. Constitution upside-down. Originally, the federal government was forbidden to do anything not specifically permitted by the Constitution, while the states and people were free to do anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Now, the U.S. federal government claims that it is free to do anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution, while the states and the people are forbidden to do anything not specifically permitted by the Constitution.
Should America Follow Its Constitution?
But there’s another side of the argument. In the 21st century, should the United States follow a Constitution that was designed for an 18th-century society?
De Montesquieu (in The Spirit of the Laws, one of the books that inspired the American founders) said that laws should match the people for whom they were created. And though it’s doubtful that the legal sewage of the Bush-Cheney era would match any population above the level of particularly stupid and thuggish monkeys, it’s also true that the U.S. Constitution no longer matches the American population.
At the time the Constitution was written, the American economy was decentralized and largely agrarian. Americans were almost exclusively Anglo-European and were highly self-reliant. They were literate and informed: The Federalist Papers, for example, were printed in newspapers and debated in taverns. Americans considered themselves first and foremost to be citizens of their states, not of a vast nation-state. As recently as 1965, the American population was 88 percent white, 11 percent black, one percent “other,” and almost everyone spoke English.
Those things are no longer true. We now live in a centralized, urban, and technological society of multiple races, nationalities, languages, and cultures that is held together only by the armed might of the federal government and the economic power of giant corporations. It’s quite similar to the Soviet Union just before it fell apart, including the war in Afghanistan and the oppressive domestic internal-security state. If the United States followed its Constitution (or the Chinese stopped lending money to the U.S. federal government), the country would shatter into at least a dozen pieces. That might be a blessing in the long run, but in the short run it would be very, very difficult for many people.
Back to Ms. Kennedy
Ms. Kennedy clearly does not respect the Constitution in anything more than a ceremonial sense. She shares that attitude with almost all national politicians except for Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Congressman Paul is a medical doctor whose colleagues call him “Dr. No” because he votes against any law that is unconstitutional — which means he votes “no” on almost every legislative proposal to come before the House.
But Ron Paul is a Congressman for a better, saner era and a better, saner American population. For the current American population, Ms. Kennedy is probably as good a candidate as any, and better than some. Her name, and the memory of her assassinated father, give her influence that might be helpful in repairing the damage caused by the Bush-Cheney regime. If she wants to be a senator, we could do worse.
Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as copyright notice and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.