A Civics Lesson

5 November 2009 @ 0:24 | Posted in » Politics

The United States Constitution lays out the role of the federal government, not a municipal government. The Constitution was needed for the Articles of Confederation failed the young nation. Strong states muscled smaller states. Each state minted its own money. While free of the rule (and taxes) of England, a young United States struggled, particularly with trade. The Articles of Confederation provided no strength for the federal government. Back to the drawing board, the founding fathers carved out a role for the federal government, ensuring that trade would thrive.

The thing is, the states were petrified of providing too much strength to the feds. The United States existed because England provided so much strength, the colonies had no say, and thus a revolution ensued. The states wanted to avoid the strong arm of a powerful federal government. The Constitution was what these great men wrote to empower and limit the federal government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Some interpret the general welfare phrase as an open invitation for the federal government to do whatever it pleases to take care of the citizenry. Yet, this is not what our forefathers intended. Indeed they had specific items for the federal government that would promote the general welfare of the United States. Those roles are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yup, that’s it. The Constitution explicitly wrote what Congress is allowed to do. Just in case it was not clear, these brilliant men wrote a few amendments to the Constitution to further define the role of the federal government. The 10th Amendment is a thing of beauty:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice what our forefathers did. They defined exactly what the federal government is responsible for. Then they stated that was all it was responsible for; everything else is someone else’s responsibility. If it’s not in the Constitution, then it is a right of the states or the people.

For example, education is nowhere in the Constitution, therefore it is not a right of the federal government. Case law supports that. In San Antonio v. Rodriguez, SCOTUS ruled that education was not a fundamental right. Because it is not a fundamental right, it is not protected by the Constitution. Why isn’t it a fundamental right? Because it is not an enumerated right specified by the Constitution.

Just to be clear, that something is not a responsibility of the federal government does not diminish its importance. Our forefathers wanted the states to be strong. Most rights were left to the states.

Under FDR, a stacked SCOTUS heard many cases related to the president’s agenda. It expanded the purview of the federal government through the Commerce Clause. That is how Social Security came into play. Since then, liberals have picked away further expanding the role of the federal government by arguing that the Commerce Clause provides the necessary enumeration. The current takeover of the healthcare industry is going to balance on the interpretation that the feds have an entree to the industry because healthcare crosses state borders.

This is the Commerce Clause:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

If “healthcare reform” is ever passed, this will be what the legal challenges will rest on. Given that states won’t allow citizens to purchase health insurance from out of state, it seems suspect to think there is interstate commerce at the heart of this issue. It’ll make for interesting case law nonetheless.

Social Issues
The Constitution was also expanded in the 1960s with Griswold v. Connecticut. The activist SCOTUS stated the right of privacy was implied in the Constitution, even though it was never stated. Because of that, in the 1970s, Roe v. Wade was decided. The issue in Roe was that the decision for an abortion was protected as a private matter between a patient and her doctor.

Most folks would argue that what goes on between a doctor and a patient is indeed a private matter. My issue with the decision is that this is not a matter for the feds to govern. Because privacy is not a right for which the feds should have purview, it should not have decided Roe. Perhaps that puts me on the fringe with some folks, but it certainly does not put me in a position of demanding that the federal government regulate what happens in the bedroom or at the doctor’s office. This is a matter for the states, much like gay marriage and other social issues.

New Jersey is rather liberal. If it (not the federal government) decides that it wants to permit abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, etc., have at it. While I may not favor such decisions, I recognize that it is the right of the state to determine those things. If the people want it, then it can be had.

Yesterday in Maine voters were asked whether they wanted to approve gay marriage. They said they didn’t, therefore Maine does not permit gay marriage. Last year California voted similarly. As a matter of fact, every time a state has put this up for a vote, it has been voted down. The only gay marriages that are legal have been imposed by state governments without the consent of the people. It’s akin to New Jersey’s commandeering of $8.6 billion to build schools.

What would be wrong however, is for the federal government to step into this issue and declare that gay marriage is permissable because of whatever reason. Again, the federal government has no role in this issue. States determine the specifications for what marriage is.

Obligations of Government
No one, I suspect, would have an issue if government resources were used to help someone truly in need. Growing up in Cape May, I am experienced with what the Atlantic Ocean looks like when it is in your living room. Being but a nine-year old boy when I first experienced that, I was more than appreciative when the Civil Defense team rowed up to our home and carried my family out to the boat and then rowed us to safety. Government provided for me in a time of emergency and with a service I could not provide for myself. With the downed electrical wires and no electricity or running water, our lives very well may have been saved. I would be willing to say that the local/state government had an obligation to rescue us.

We could envision all sorts of situations where citizens need help and a role for government to provide it. The question is for which ones is government obligated to provide assistance? That is not such an easy question to answer.

With the best of intentions, governments have set up programs so those who need help can get it. The problem, however, is that the consequence is saying yes to everything. Government programs are highly inefficient and ripe for fraud.

Can society feel empathy for a stay-at-home mother with three children whose husband leaves her? Sure it can. So government rushes in and provides for her. Except for it cannot just stop there; government needs to institutionalize the activity, so it creates a program for any woman with children whose husbands leave. All of a sudden, husbands begin leaving at an alarming rate. Families realize they can earn more if Daddy leaves, so Daddy goes away. Families of multiple generations are created with no fathers.

Children of low-income families who have diagnosed learning issues may not get the medication, therapy, and the like that they need because the family cannot afford it. Government has an obligation to help out. So in it rushes to establish a program to help out these children. It isn’t long before families recognize that the more children they have, the more money the government will provide. The program is so overrun with bureaucracy that no one follows up on whether the money is used for the needy child or for a new television.

So what is the obligation of government?

Is it to provide free meals at school? What if those who recieve the free meal toss it away preferring instead to eat the junk food they brought in or spend money to purchase the ice cream, cookies, or other treats with the money the family didn’t have to spend on the meal?

Government intervention is not benign. Surely we want to help those who are truly needy. The problem arises determining who those folks are and limiting the obligation to them.

Stating that government is obligated to help is only part of the equation; determining who is needy is the hefty part. Government does not have a great track record of doing so.

Who are the needy?

Our family does not own a gaming system (Wii, DS, etc.). We pay for our children’s meals. Surely if a family didn’t have money to feed its children, government has an obligation to do so. But what if the family decided to purchase a gaming system instead of the food? Does government still have that obligation? Is that family needy? Cell phones are a neccessity or a luxury? Do they preclude government’s obligation?

While government may have obligations in this realm, determining just what they are is problematic. Envision instead a community that took care of itself without the expectation that government would be the safety net. A neighbor recognizes a family in need who then rallies the others on the block to help out. An extra collection during Sunday’s mass provides for the family whose father left a SAHM with three mouths to feed. A woman arranges with the boss to allow a co-worker an extra shift because he is behind on his rent. A business donates coats to families in need during the winter. A social group provides entertainment at the park each weekend. All these sound far more enticing than expecting government to be the caretaker.

Doing what is right is God’s expectation of us. Mandating morality through common law has had mixed results.

Back to Business
While I am in favor of less government in my life, I do recognize that government is a neccessary evil. Sometimes an interjection of cash to stimulate the economy is needed. Our food supply is precious as we are the only country in the world that can feed itself. Government ensuring that farms persevere is a matter of national security. Obviously, the commission of the armed forces to protect our way of life is something for which the federal government is needed.

The federal government provides great security for all of us, but it does not need to provide a security blanket to each of us. There is a difference. There is no guarantee that one will be successful in life. Sometimes folks fail because they are lazy and weak. Sometimes they fail because of a bad break. Either way, it is not the federal government’s role to prop up every struggling business nor is it its role to determine which they will. Why was Bear Stearns allowed to fail but JP Morgan was propped up? Why is the federal government allowed to make those decisions? The federal government isn’t tasked with creating markets to improve the economy either.

State and Municipal Governments
Perhaps the latter is something a state or a local government decides it wants to do. In case it wasn’t clear, the United States Constitution defines and limits the role of the federal government. It does not define the role for municipal governments, for instance. That is left to an individual state’s constitution and the resolutions and ordinances of the municipality itself. If it decides to create markets with its government, the United States Constitution has little to say on the matter. Taxpayers may voice their opinion, however. It would be a bastardization of the Constitution to claim it somehow is the justification for how a municipality governs itself.

It’s nice to fill one’s day reviewing basic civics he learned in high school. It is far better than squandering one’s time imbibing in alcohol, methinks.