Kevin Price
What Constitution do members of Congress defend?
By Kevin Price
It sounds like a silly question..."What Constitution do members of Congress defend?" However, this seems to be the centerpiece issue in American politics today. I know there is only one US Constitution in force today. Any middle school student or even elementary student should know this. But many candidates for Congress seem to lack a clue. For example, Chris Coons, Democrat and recently elected Senator in Delaware stated during a campaign debate with his opponent, Christine O'Donnell that he was "interested if we can explore further your suggestion that the Constitution would be your guide. Because I'm interested in hearing whether it's the Constitution as passed by the founders, the Constitution of 1920, 1930, the Constitution of 1975, the Constitution of today."
When you hear rhetoric like this one would think that there were thousands of pages to that legal document and even hundreds of amendments that have changed its meaning. After over 200 years our Constitution is only around 20 pages long and only has 27 amendments. If we adhered to those pages and those amendments, we would have a very different government from the one we have today.
For example, the limits to government are clearly stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, where one finds merely 17 enumerated powers and the rest is left to the states and the citizens, as it is clearly articulated in the Tenth Amendment. If we abided by the Constitution and the limited things the federal government was allowed to do, we would be taxed very little, spending would seem inconsequential, and the level of freedom we would enjoy would be unprecedented compared to the rest of the world.
You would think people like Chris Coons would understand the Constitution. After all, as mentioned, it is a very small document and he is a Yale educated attorney. The problem with graduates of law school today, most never opened a copy of the US Constitution. They might study about the Constitution, but even that practice is in decline. Instead they study "case law." Simply put, they study the various cases that changed the interpretation of the Constitution, but not the document itself. This would be similar to disregarding a road map and using the written notes of the many people who came after the map who developed failed approaches to reach a destination, and thinking the next one might work. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. The Constitution is simple, it requires no law degree to figure out, but it may require such to distort it.
When a liberal like Chris Coons "defends" the Constitution, it is not that document that was ratified 200 years ago, or the 27 amendments that followed, but the "Constitution" of a government on auto pilot. This is a "Constitution" that passes bills without basis and sets precedents without rules. It is eloquent lawlessness, but it is not the US Constitution.
© Kevin Price
February 17, 2011
It sounds like a silly question..."What Constitution do members of Congress defend?" However, this seems to be the centerpiece issue in American politics today. I know there is only one US Constitution in force today. Any middle school student or even elementary student should know this. But many candidates for Congress seem to lack a clue. For example, Chris Coons, Democrat and recently elected Senator in Delaware stated during a campaign debate with his opponent, Christine O'Donnell that he was "interested if we can explore further your suggestion that the Constitution would be your guide. Because I'm interested in hearing whether it's the Constitution as passed by the founders, the Constitution of 1920, 1930, the Constitution of 1975, the Constitution of today."
When you hear rhetoric like this one would think that there were thousands of pages to that legal document and even hundreds of amendments that have changed its meaning. After over 200 years our Constitution is only around 20 pages long and only has 27 amendments. If we adhered to those pages and those amendments, we would have a very different government from the one we have today.
For example, the limits to government are clearly stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, where one finds merely 17 enumerated powers and the rest is left to the states and the citizens, as it is clearly articulated in the Tenth Amendment. If we abided by the Constitution and the limited things the federal government was allowed to do, we would be taxed very little, spending would seem inconsequential, and the level of freedom we would enjoy would be unprecedented compared to the rest of the world.
You would think people like Chris Coons would understand the Constitution. After all, as mentioned, it is a very small document and he is a Yale educated attorney. The problem with graduates of law school today, most never opened a copy of the US Constitution. They might study about the Constitution, but even that practice is in decline. Instead they study "case law." Simply put, they study the various cases that changed the interpretation of the Constitution, but not the document itself. This would be similar to disregarding a road map and using the written notes of the many people who came after the map who developed failed approaches to reach a destination, and thinking the next one might work. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. The Constitution is simple, it requires no law degree to figure out, but it may require such to distort it.
When a liberal like Chris Coons "defends" the Constitution, it is not that document that was ratified 200 years ago, or the 27 amendments that followed, but the "Constitution" of a government on auto pilot. This is a "Constitution" that passes bills without basis and sets precedents without rules. It is eloquent lawlessness, but it is not the US Constitution.
© Kevin Price
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
