From Ronald Reagan: “’We the people’ tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. We decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the people’ tell the government what it is allowed to do. ‘We the people’ are free.”
As always, the Gipper is spot on. Our Constitution was written to specifically tell the federal government what it could, and could not, do. The people, and the government, thus knew exactly what the limitations of government are (or were supposed to be). The government can’t cross those lines, otherwise it infringes on the freedoms of the people and becomes a tyranny. That is the genius of the American system as established by our Founding Fathers. It is almost unique in history.
Mr. Reagan is absolutely correct. Today, and down through history, most governments, if they even had a “written constitution” (and most didn’t), gave the people the rights it (government) wanted them to have. This isn’t freedom, this is slavery, and that’s exactly what our Founders called it. If someone (or government) ALLOWS you to do what you do, you aren’t “free,” you are a slave to them. “Is life so dear, and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Those are the words of the great Patrick Henry as he argued for secession from the British government’s “chains and slavery.” People aren’t free if government gives them the rights they have. Because any rights the government gives, the government can take away. Isn’t that what slave owners did?
Interesting, in the 18th century, England did not have (and still doesn’t) a “written” constitution like America’s. This is one of the main reasons our Founders did write a constitution. Put government’s “rights” (limitations) down on paper so that everyone—the people AND the government—know exactly what they are and when the government is going beyond its defined powers. Americans KNEW what their freedoms were because they KNEW exactly what government could and could not do.
Very few countries have ever had such a system, which is what made America a unique, and grand, experiment in liberty.
Please note the word “experiment.”
Unfortunately, the battle in America of “liberty” vs. “tyranny” began almost immediately after our Constitution was ratified. Alexander Hamilton wanted a national bank, a “Band of the United States,” which Thomas Jefferson argued was unconstitutional. “Where is a government bank mentioned in the Constitution?” Jefferson asked. “It’s IMPLIED,” Hamilton answered, “in the ‘necessary and proper’ clause of Article 1 Section 8.” Patrick Henry was aghast at that argument. “Given that logic, you could imply anything in the Constitution. That defeats the whole purpose of the document” (I’m paraphrasing their arguments here). Southerners disputed the Bank, saying it would help Northern industry and hurt Southern agriculture, a point which Hamilton granted because that is exactly what he wanted—an increase in American industry. The national government, Southerners argued, is supposed to be neutral, not aiding one section of society over another. That would be divisive, not unifying. (What a novel concept...) This “bank war”—its constitutionality—was actually the first step in dividing post-Constitutional America between North and South, the first step towards America’s War Between the States.
Much of the first 80 years of American history was a political battle over the Constitutionality of federal actions. “Loose constructionists” (Hamiltonians) wanted the government to promote science, build roads and canals, set aside public lands for conservation—all of which may be good for a country, but none of which were strictly mentioned in the Constitution. Other matters became debated before the war—land grants to colleges, a protective tariff, the national bank. When the Republican Party with it Hamiltonian “loose construction” views gained control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in 1860, hotheads in the South feared the Republicans would try to stretch the national government’s power to the abolition of slavery (something Lincoln quite plainly said he could not and would not do). But emotion won and the South seceded.
Slavery may have been the trigger for secession, but how the Constitution was to be interpreted was the underlying philosophical motivation. The North, of course, won the war, and more significantly, the philosophical battle over the Constitution.
Washington, D.C., has since been allowed to define its own powers, and any government given that right will obviously enhance its powers as far as possible. What can the states, now, do about it? Their greatest weapon, the threat of secession, has been taken from them.
Mr. Reagan’s words quoted at the beginning of this column are what the men who wrote our Constitution (perhaps Hamilton excluded) intended. But is this what we have today? Yes, there still exists certain protections that people not named Donald Trump and not politically conservative have against the federal government. But please read the Constitution sometime, especially Article 1, Section 8, and the powers given to the President and Supreme Court. You won’t find 99.9% of Washington does today in the Constitution if you read it until doomsday. Joe Biden and the Democrats, the Deep State, and Uniparty pay absolutely no attention to our Constitution when formulating their ideas or budgets. Just one, of millions, of examples: Social Security. Where is that in the Constitution? It may, or may not be, a good idea, but that’s irrelevant. Where does the Constitution give the federal government that power? It doesn’t. Every politician in Washington shouts “Constitution” at the top of their voice, but not one of them has probably ever read the document. It certainly has no influence over them.
Great words from the Gipper—in principle. But James Madison must be rolling in his grave.