Congress and the Constitution

I was happy to hear that the first order of business in the House of Representatives was reading aloud the Constitution. Of course, this alone will not bring us any closer to limited government, but it will help focus on an important issue--the role and power of the Congress in relation to the Constitution. An article by Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute explores this issue. I read it and wanted to share it with you.

Pilon says that for much of the history of the United States, members of Congress and presidents alike rejected legislation because they believed there was no constitutional authority to enact it. They all believed the key element for America was individual liberty. The Constitution gave the federal government the authority to pursue certain limited ends, like national security and ensuring free interstate commerce, but otherwise left us free to pursue our ends either through the states or as private individuals. It did not authorize the federal government to provide us with the huge array of goods and services that today turn so many into dependents.

The first question the new Congress will be asking of any proposed law is simple (but overlooked lately): Does the Constitution authorize us to pursue this end? If not, that ends the matter. If yes, the second question is: Are the means we employ "necessary and proper," as constrained by the principles of federalism and the rights retained by the people that are implied by a government of enumerated powers? That's pretty simple. The Constitution was written to be understood by ordinary citizens.

Pilon then explains how modern constitutional law got so complicated and federal power so expansive. It's true that several provisions in the Constitution were written broadly to allow for contingencies. But those provisions were not supposed to create boundless congressional power. The idea was that any political redress of unexpected problems would be done only in conjunction with the larger structure, aims and principles of the document.

The author sees the growth of government in the last one hundred years due to the rise of progressives. They rejected the Constitution's plan for limited government, advocating social engineering schemes instead. Rule by government experts was the order of the day. As people and politicians succumbed to those ideas, especially in the states, courts would often block the schemes in the name of constitutional liberty. Can you imagine? The courts were on the people's side. Man, those were the good old days.

But under the Franklin Roosevelt administration, according to Pilon, the courts buckled. They essentially gave Congress the power to redistribute and regulate at will, eviscerating the very foundation of the Constitution: the doctrine of enumerated powers.

This year's Congress needs to get to the root of the problem if the representatives want to start restoring limited constitutional government. There are several things they can do, Pilon believes.

First, they'll have to keep the debate focused on the Constitution, not simply on policy or practicality. Second, they'll have to call a halt to the idea that Congress can do virtually anything. The Supreme Court was wrong in allowing Congress to exercise power not granted it by the Constitution, and courts today are wrong when they uphold those precedents—even if they're not in a position today to reverse them until Congress takes greater responsibility. Third, Congress has to start taking greater responsibility. It should stop letting the President take power from it.

This is going to be tough, and it will take years. But, says Pilon, "the alternative—our Leviathan state, which recognizes no limits on its power—is simply unconstitutional." Amen.

Interesting poll results

A new poll from Parade magazine has some interesting findings regarding the spirituality of America.

In some ways the news is good. About 70 percent of Americans believe in God, nearly 80 percent pray, and 3/4 believe parents need to give their children a religious upbringing. In addition, only five percent don't believe in God.

But as far as I'm concerned, much of it is bad news. About half say they rarely or never attend worship services, and over one-fourth say they don't practice any kind of religion at all. Many put themselves in a new category -- "spiritual but not religious." This is pretty fuzzy thinking, which is echoed in other findings of the poll. For example, only 12 percent say their own religion is the only true faith while 59 percent said all religions are valid. How is that possible? For example, one says Jesus is the Messiah while another says he is not. Both of them cannot be correct. Only 40 percent said the reason they picked their faith is because it is the source of truth. Why are the rest selecting thier faith--it "feels" right? it's convenient? it requires very little commitment? Nearly 60 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.

What does all this suggest? People have bought into relativism big time. Truth is not as important as it was at one time. Instead, people are selecting their religious beliefs for fuzzy, emotional reasons. It bothers me that a majority believe religion and politics should not be mixed. Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the thousands of other political leaders who have invoked the name of God while working in the political arena. A worldview will follow an individual into politics; there's no way to separate the two. Either a religious outlook on life or a secular outlook on life will inform the political leader, and from what I've seen of secular leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, to name a few), I'll take my chances with an individual whose religion plays an important role in his/her life.