Category — Constitution

The Declaration of Independence says there are self-evident truths which provide the foundation for American government and society. The American experiment in self-government is predicated on them. However, public understanding of those truths is being lost; they are no longer self-evident to many Americans. They are fundamental principles on which America stands. This appendix “unpacks” the meaning of the term “self-evident truths.” It identifies ten principles or truths which are essential to understanding, defending and preserving the theory and practice of the American way of life.

The State of the Union address was meant as one of the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. Every other president has been respectful of the other branches during the annual address—except for this president.

A return to constitutionality was supposed to be a hallmark of the 2010 election. Part of the GOP’s Pledge to America read, “We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.” Republicans took over the House with considerable help from the Tea Party and other constitutional conservatives. How has Congress fared in delivering on its promise to comply with the Constitution?

Friday’s Wall Street Journal contained an article aptly entitled Contempt For The Constitution, in which they point out the inconsistent, if convenient, (to them) interpretations given to the nation’s founding document by the Obama administration’s Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on Thursday.

This puzzle came about in the course of researching the concept of natural rights, e.g. those inherent to human beings. A lot of what Madison put into the original version of the preamble echoed what was in the Declaration of independence, but those in Congress at the time, didn’t like such an explicit statement about how people were entitled to overthrow an abusive government. After all, they were now the government. Still, the preamble they came up with says a lot about their views on government and its role.

The Founders distrusted overly strong governments. That’s why they engineered a limited republic. Today, Americans seem to turn to their government to validate and protect real and presumed rights, and increasingly rely on government to guarantee the substance of life. Many modern Americans embrace national authority and fight to enlarge governmental powers. The Founders would be appalled. What would the Founders think about growing government power? Here is what they said in their own words.

With the hindsight of over two hundred years, we may safely say that the concerns of those advocating a Bill of Rights were justified, regardless of the philosophical premise. Our country would be a very different place without the guarantees they offer.

In order to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, we need to understand it. Luckily, there are some great learning tools available to every American. These include an online course at James Madison’s Montpelier Center for the Constitution, the webcast series Introduction to the Constitution from Hillsdale College, and several good books, including The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Tempest at Dawn, and Decision in Philadelphia.

The Founders feared an overly powerful government. Governments govern … which means they exercise power. George Washington may have said it best, “Government is not reason: It is not eloquence, it is Force, like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” James Madison chimed in by adding, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

The Fall 2011 issue of the Claremont Review of Books contains a fascinating article by Hadley Arkes, entitled, A Natural Law Manifesto. In it, Arkes lays out a compelling argument for the use of Natural Law in adjudicating Constitutional issues. One of the topics discussed in the article is the mistaken reliance on the doctrine of “original intent,” by conservative jurists.