Hylander_1314
10-20-08, 11:52 AM
I stumbled across this article of our American foundations, and what has become of it over even the last 10 years. It's food for thought as to how things have aligned with more and more power being concentrated in the hands of a few.
Use It or Lose It (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it) http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/james%20madison.001-001.jpgNot being a devotee of late-night television, I had to be told by an acquaintance about a very insightful remark uttered by comedian Jay Leno. During the customary monologue at the start of his nightly show, Leno pointed to our nation’s leaders and said: "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.
Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys; it’s worked for over 200 years; and [heck] we’re not using it any more."
Leno’s hyperbole contained an element of truth. While some deference is paid to procedural parts of the venerable document, its most substantive clauses have been consigned to a memory hole. The Constitution is honored in the sense that there are still three branches of government; the president still reports about "the state of the Union"; Congress does "lay and collect taxes"; and "compensation" is provided to those who serve in a government post.
However, the same cannot be said about the very first sentence in the main body of the Constitution. It states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." If all legislative powers reside in Congress, why have Supreme Court decisions attained "law of the land" status? And why is law made through executive orders and presidential decisions? Not only is this abuse tolerated, it’s celebrated. In 1998, Clinton adviser Paul Begala arrogantly described his boss’s repeated use of executive orders as, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." And Congress did nothing to stop this abuse.
Occasionally, a direct repudiation of a hugely important constitutional provision surfaces. Worried that a future president might take the nation into war, the Founders carefully assigned the war-declaration power solely to Congress. But Congress did not declare the wars we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003). The Constitution wasn’t amended to account for this; it was simply ignored by the vast majority in Congress.
With war clouds gathering just two years ago, the House International Relations Committee met on October 3, 2002 and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a motion to declare war on Iraq. He announced his intention to vote against his own measure because he didn’t believe our nation should go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But he wanted to remind his colleagues that they alone possessed war-making power. If they wanted to go to war against Iraq, he reasoned, they should vote to declare war as required by the Constitution. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to Dr. Paul’s initiative with as clear a repudiation of the oath of office as has ever been uttered. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [and are] no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them.... [Your motion is] inappropriate, anachronistic, [and] it isn’t done anymore." And that was that. The committee defeated Dr. Paul’s measure 45-0.
Early in 1999, former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor Robert Reich claimed in an op-ed column that Americans need not worry about the looming impeachment process and its potential to interrupt the work of Congress. He assured all that the business of government would continue because the Federal Reserve now made economic decisions, the IMF dictated foreign policy, and the president decided whether or not to go to war. He concluded, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant."
The Constitution is oftentimes trampled even when Congress legislates, since Congress may not pass any law it chooses, but must operate within the powers delegated to it. Some of the unconstitutional legislation is not even read by the lawmakers themselves. On October 24, 2001 in the wake of the 9-11 attack, the House of Representatives approved the USA Patriot Act that many now understand poses a threat to fundamental constitutionally protected rights. "It’s my understanding," said Congressman Paul, "that the bill wasn’t printed before the vote [and was] definitely not available to members."
Look again at that first sentence in the Constitution. It doesn’t take a political science Ph.D. to realize that the federal government rightfully possesses only those powers "herein granted" in the Constitution. And there is no grant of power in its pages for the federal government to be involved in education, health, housing, energy, foreign aid and a host of other areas. The gigantic bureaucracies we are saddled with cost enormous sums. Even worse, immense powers are being concentrated in the hands of the central government — a sure path to tyranny.
Looking merely for a laugh, Jay Leno made a vital point. But the Constitution, though routinely circumvented or ignored, still stands. The burning question for Americans remains: Are there enough patriots in this land who understand the Constitution’s timeless value and are willing to get involved in the struggle to assure that its limitations on government are restored to full force and effect? If so, the future looks bright. If not, America’s flickering lamp of liberty will one day blow out.
The article is here:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it
Use It or Lose It (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it) http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/james%20madison.001-001.jpgNot being a devotee of late-night television, I had to be told by an acquaintance about a very insightful remark uttered by comedian Jay Leno. During the customary monologue at the start of his nightly show, Leno pointed to our nation’s leaders and said: "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.
Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys; it’s worked for over 200 years; and [heck] we’re not using it any more."
Leno’s hyperbole contained an element of truth. While some deference is paid to procedural parts of the venerable document, its most substantive clauses have been consigned to a memory hole. The Constitution is honored in the sense that there are still three branches of government; the president still reports about "the state of the Union"; Congress does "lay and collect taxes"; and "compensation" is provided to those who serve in a government post.
However, the same cannot be said about the very first sentence in the main body of the Constitution. It states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." If all legislative powers reside in Congress, why have Supreme Court decisions attained "law of the land" status? And why is law made through executive orders and presidential decisions? Not only is this abuse tolerated, it’s celebrated. In 1998, Clinton adviser Paul Begala arrogantly described his boss’s repeated use of executive orders as, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." And Congress did nothing to stop this abuse.
Occasionally, a direct repudiation of a hugely important constitutional provision surfaces. Worried that a future president might take the nation into war, the Founders carefully assigned the war-declaration power solely to Congress. But Congress did not declare the wars we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003). The Constitution wasn’t amended to account for this; it was simply ignored by the vast majority in Congress.
With war clouds gathering just two years ago, the House International Relations Committee met on October 3, 2002 and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a motion to declare war on Iraq. He announced his intention to vote against his own measure because he didn’t believe our nation should go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But he wanted to remind his colleagues that they alone possessed war-making power. If they wanted to go to war against Iraq, he reasoned, they should vote to declare war as required by the Constitution. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to Dr. Paul’s initiative with as clear a repudiation of the oath of office as has ever been uttered. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [and are] no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them.... [Your motion is] inappropriate, anachronistic, [and] it isn’t done anymore." And that was that. The committee defeated Dr. Paul’s measure 45-0.
Early in 1999, former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor Robert Reich claimed in an op-ed column that Americans need not worry about the looming impeachment process and its potential to interrupt the work of Congress. He assured all that the business of government would continue because the Federal Reserve now made economic decisions, the IMF dictated foreign policy, and the president decided whether or not to go to war. He concluded, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant."
The Constitution is oftentimes trampled even when Congress legislates, since Congress may not pass any law it chooses, but must operate within the powers delegated to it. Some of the unconstitutional legislation is not even read by the lawmakers themselves. On October 24, 2001 in the wake of the 9-11 attack, the House of Representatives approved the USA Patriot Act that many now understand poses a threat to fundamental constitutionally protected rights. "It’s my understanding," said Congressman Paul, "that the bill wasn’t printed before the vote [and was] definitely not available to members."
Look again at that first sentence in the Constitution. It doesn’t take a political science Ph.D. to realize that the federal government rightfully possesses only those powers "herein granted" in the Constitution. And there is no grant of power in its pages for the federal government to be involved in education, health, housing, energy, foreign aid and a host of other areas. The gigantic bureaucracies we are saddled with cost enormous sums. Even worse, immense powers are being concentrated in the hands of the central government — a sure path to tyranny.
Looking merely for a laugh, Jay Leno made a vital point. But the Constitution, though routinely circumvented or ignored, still stands. The burning question for Americans remains: Are there enough patriots in this land who understand the Constitution’s timeless value and are willing to get involved in the struggle to assure that its limitations on government are restored to full force and effect? If so, the future looks bright. If not, America’s flickering lamp of liberty will one day blow out.
The article is here:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it