The Constitution has been in the news a lot this week. The first act of the new GOP House of Representatives this week was to read the entire Constitution out loud on the House floor, for the very first time, no less. It’s about darn time. The Constitution tops my list of mandatory reading for all Americans, especially for elected/nominated/appointed leaders and political commentators.
So how relevant is the Constitution to the present day? Let’s be real here. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
So, if it’s the supreme law of the land, why doesn’t it feel that way? I’ve got some thoughts on that, too. I think people tend to champion the Constitution only when it’s convenient for them to do so, and ignore it when it’s inconvenient. I find both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this.
For instance, conservatives and republicans eagerly embrace the 2nd amendment, (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”). However, they also say the Constitution forbids anything besides gold and silver as money. They neglect to mention that the excerpt in question appears in Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States), and reads, “No State shall […] coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;.” There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the federal government from making paper money. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly says the federal government is empowered to do so. Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to, “Coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.”
On the flip side, liberals and democrats love the General Welfare Clause of Article 1, Section 8 (“The Congress shall have Power to […] provide for the […] general welfare of the United States.”). Most likely, this is the Constitutional justification they use for their more progressive measures, such as Obamacare and numerous initiatives of yesteryear from LBJ’s Great Society or FDR’s New Deal. However, in implementing many of these initiatives, they have demonstrated a total disregard for the 10th amendment (“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.”).
The 14th amendment presents a unique example. Both conservatives and liberals champion this amendment when it’s convenient and ignore it when it’s not. Here’s section 1.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
To the delight of liberals everywhere, and to the disdain of conservatives, I’ve used this excerpt to justify my argument for equal legal rights for homosexuals, and that can be found here.
However, I score points with conservatives and lose them with liberals when I use this very same excerpt in the illegal immigration debate. Liberals use the, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” section to say that anybody born in the USA is automatically a citizen of the USA, whether that person’s parents are American citizens or not. However, they ignore the next bit, “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second bit tells me that if the parents are here illegally or otherwise not citizens of the USA, then they are not technically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, neither are their children. On a side note, there’s no legal precedent establishing the principle the liberals try to justify.
I want to see the Constitution restored to its rightful place as the centerpiece of our legal and political establishment, but today’s selective application of the document prevents constitutionalism from truly flourishing.
Links: http://timsopinionblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/reframing-gay-marriage-discussion.html
I would agree that the federal government can make paper money as payment to the federal government. However, the States are forbidden to use any Thing but gold and silver Coin with the people of the State. If the federal government wanted to accept pigs as payment, it has every right to do so.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Sec. 8 empowers Congress to "coin" money and regulate the value. "Coining" is not the same as "printing".
In Federalist Papers #44, James Madision spoke on this issue and had this to say:
“The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the confederation as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance also the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints, and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head. And as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained, by local mints established under the general authority.”
Notice Madison speaks of “coining”, “alloy”, and “recoinage”. Paper money is not coined, is not an alloy, and cannot be recoined. Madison, as well as the other Founding Fathers, knew of the dangers of using paper money. They understood that paper money can be devalued and the wealth of the American people would be destroyed by the bankers via inflation.
The Federal Government can make anything they wish as a Tender for payments to the Federal Government. However, States are prohibited by the Constitution from using any Thing but gold and silver Coin as payment.
That's some great context on the hard vs paper money issue. Thanks for posting. :-)
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, I generally agree about the dangers of paper money compared to hard money, however I'm not sure how we could unwind the current paper money system, and what unintended consequences there could be (both positive and negative). It's very possible the cure could be worse than the disease, and such a course of action would certainly have global ramifications.
I brought it up in the context of the Constitution rather than an actual opinion on the issue. In my view, even if the GOP and conservatives are correct on the issue (out of scope here, mainly because an opinion on the hard/paper money issue would require several posts :-p), they should not be misusing the Constitution to falsely strengthen their position.
I wanted to show simply that both the left and the right will support certain portions of the Constitution, but are also guilty of misusing (sometimes even ignoring) other sections of the Constitution to justify their respective agendas.