Opinion: It’s Our Constitution — Not Kavanaugh


One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution:” “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. … 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.” Today’s reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.

If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a “living document.” Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh’s confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man — Judge Kavanaugh — whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let’s examine statements of other possibly “misinformed” Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, “I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity.” He added that to approve such spending would “be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. I examined our Constitution, looking to see whether an Article 5 amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today’s federal budget. I found no such amendment.

But I found a constitutional loophole that many congressmen use as a blank check, as well as justification to control most aspects of our lives — namely, the general welfare clause. The Constitution’s preamble contains the phrase “promote the general Welfare,” and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated.” Madison wrote: “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Case closed: It’s our Constitution that’s the problem for leftist interventionists — not Brett Kavanaugh.

Writes for Creators Syndicate.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Hate crime stats tell a disturbing tale

When FBI released its report “Hate Crimes Statistics, 2017” earlier this week, Srinivas Kuchibhotla’s name was nowhere to be seen. Yet his widow, Sunayana Dumala, knows his murder in Olathe, Kan., was a hate crime. She didn’t need the report to tell her that. But America does. We need hate crimes detailed and categorized in...
Opinion: Sheep without shepherds

Here is a striking fact about the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. The sex abuse crisis in the early 2000s, the horrid revelations of predation that began in Boston in 2001, did not have an obvious long-term effect on the practice of the faith. Yes, American Catholicism has lost millions of its baptized flock over the last 50 years. But...
Opinion: Why was Trump’s tax cut a fizzle?

Last week’s blue wave means that Donald Trump will go into the 2020 election with only one major legislative achievement: a big tax cut for corporations and the wealthy. Still, that tax cut was supposed to accomplish big things. Republicans thought it would give them a big electoral boost, and they predicted dramatic economic gains. What they...
Opinion: Congressman who believes in what he has lived

WASHINGTON — The world’s oldest political party has developed an aversion to discretion. The Democratic Party is manacled to an over-caffeinated base that believes that deft government can deliver parity of status to everyone while micromanaging the economy’s health care sector, which is larger than all but three other foreign nations&rsquo...
Opinion: Michelle Obama tells her truth

So now Michelle Obama finally tells her truth. There has always been about her a sense that she did, indeed, have a truth of her own and that it was, if not at odds with the one her husband expressed with high-flown eloquence, more real and more rooted, as befits a girl from the South Side of Chicago. “You wait till Barack gets out of office...
More Stories