We should insist that the Constitution is fairly used to "secure the blessings of Liberty" to all without regard to political philosophy. U.S. Constitution Should Be First Thing Legislators Consult
April 17, 2011
Leave a Comment
|
||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
We all get a chance to evaluate our legislative representatives so we need a guideline for that task.
The best guide is undoubtedly the U.S. Constitution. Hammered out in hot, contentious sessions in Philadelphia about two and a quarter centuries ago, the document has fallen into neglect and misunderstanding.
The Constitution has been co-opted by ideologues and used by power-mongering technocrats as a tool for demagoguery.
The worst any idea or dictate of government can be called is "unconstitutional."
The only way to guard against these evil spirits undermining our national welfare is to know the Constitution and evaluate our legislators fairly on the basis of its statements.
As the broadest guideline, let's look at the preamble:
"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the 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."
As we form our opinions about our legislators and the executive branch over the next certain to be confusing and contentious two years, we can compare the actions of our representatives with the aims stated in the Constitution by the founders in their wisdom.
We might do well to listen to the words used like "entitlements," especially. The word entitlements seems almost to be perjorative, designating something that really is a giveaway that citizens are in fact not entitled to.
Legislators who bray about "entitlements" seem to be saying in effect that those who they represent should have the blessings of liberty but others (not of their political faith) should not.
How about tax cuts for the rich? Are they not "entitlements," that should be classed as such and evaluated under the rubric "general welfare?" Or are entitlements considered just publicly funded support for the less fortunate?
If it can be proven that tax cuts for the rich promote the general welfare (i.e., create jobs) then they are more likely and more deserving of legislative support, aren't they? However, we have yet to see that proof.
If governmental programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security promote the general welfare, as they surely do, then why should they not be sacrosanct?
If programs like Planned Parenthood are deserving of support under the "establish Justice" and "general welfare" clauses, why would we allow ideologues to gut them under the guise of budget cutting?
What is the overall benefit to society of all of these programs? Are legislators judging them based on the Constitution, or on the narrow goals of their own political and ideological agendas?
The right of public employees to bargain collectively is under furious assault in many states, especially Wisconsin. Would a court rightfully apply the provisions of the first amendment, freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceable to assemble, to collective bargaining? Would not allowing private employees to bargain and restricting the right of public employees be an infringement? Would it not create a separate class and also violate the provision of the first amendment allowing people to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Serious judicial consideration needs to be given to Amendment IX, entitled "Rights retained by the people." This provision states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Lets look even further into Amendment XIV, entitled "Civil Rights," that states: "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."
Does the attempt by the governor of Wisconsin to deny public employees the right to bargain, while allowing it for private employees, violate this provision? On the face of it, perhaps a reasonable person would so judge.
There is little doubt that as debate on these deep issues continue that courts eventually will decide these questions so vital to our democracy.
Many ideologues contend that we must use the Constitution as the benchmark for all governmental action. Well then, let's do just that.
As the People, shouldn't we should insist that the Constitution is fairly used to "secure the blessings of Liberty" to all without regard to political philosophy?###
| Printer Friendly Story View |
|
|
Dave Rogers |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-21-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm