What Kind of Constitution Do We Have?

Left and Right agree that the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, was the foundation of the American political system.  Does it hold the same sway today?

No.  To be sure, the importance of the Constitution is at least given lip service by most.

Those on the Left claim adherence to a “living” (pliable) Constitution.  And others consider the document to contain mere guidance as to the appropriate exercise of federal power.

But such views of the meaning – the purpose – of the Constitution were certainly not what the Founders had in mind.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of national authorities by explicit language setting forth powers possessed by the Federal government.

Initial critics of the proposed Constitution complained that it did not encourage the limitations on the government’s authority.  They pushed for a Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 6, chided those skeptics by observing that the Constitution did not provide authority to do other than what was set forth.  Hence, a recitation of rights not affected by the Constitution was unnecessary, even dangerous.

“Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Despite Hamilton’s argument, other proponents of the Constitution recognized that without a Bill of Rights addition, the Constitution would not be ratified by the necessary majority of states.  So promises were made, and kept, to approve the first ten amendments when the first Congress convened.

In retrospect, it is clear that Alexander Hamilton underestimated the determination of others to sidestep obvious Constitutional limitations on Federal power, from President Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to proscribing anti-abortion laws in Roe v. Wade in 1962.

So has the Constitution become a hollow shell of its old 1787 self?  Is it like the Magna Carta of 1215 which is honored as an important political event of the day but is no longer really relevant?

Conservatives strongly disagree.  Limited government is freedom’s bulwark.  That is not meant as a lofty platitude only.  To the extent that governmental authority is expanded, the freedom of some – maybe all --individuals is reduced. 

The Constitution – plainly – was not drafted to serve as a guide or as a document which could be ignored if policy makers chose to take action not authorized.

The 240 year old parchment was meant as a fixed restraint on the government.  The provision of an amendment process made that clear.

Thus, treating the terms and contents of the U.S. Constitution with the same respect American law grants contracts is mandated.  The States ratified the document after long and intense debate between its supporters and foes.  The disputes were serious because of what seemingly everyone knew was to be binding upon the nation – the law of the land.  The fight was not over sentiments meant to be words of wisdom or guidance, adherence to which was optional. 

The text of the U.S. Constitution was meant to be enforced.

With a clear conservative majority now on the U.S. Supreme Court, we have good reason to be optimistic that the original meaning of the Constitution will be observed.