THE Constitution

Today the 112th Congress convenes and the House Republicans will read aloud The Constitution. This should be very interesting since I doubt many of the readers have actually read the document and considered the accompanying history. Along with the reading of Madison's masterpiece , the Supreme Court's interpretation of the words must be considered. The court is granted the power in Article III to interpret the Constitution, thus their rulings become "the law of the land". Many of the tea party types, if they actually pay attention, will be very surprised at many of the things that they hear and don't hear. Will they understand the complicated historical and judicial context that must be considered along with the words?


When the Preamble is read what will they think when they hear "We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, provide for 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."? Provide for the general welfare?

Article I, section 8 is interesting. This is where the powers of Congress are listed (the enumerated or delegated powers). Some may be surprised that the very first power granted is "to lay and collect taxes". Clause 8 gives Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts"...interesting. Clause 11 may surprise many who are not aware that ONLY Congress can declare war. Gee that hasn't technically happened since December 8, 1941. THEN Article I, section 8, clause 18 will be read..."and Congress shall have the power 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." REALLY? Well, isn't that interesting. The Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v Maryland that this clause meant that there were implied powers granted to Congress and they COULD pass laws that were not specifically stated but implied by clauses 1 through 17. Thus settling the argument over whether the Congress had the power to create a national bank. This ruling by the Court with the Tenth Amendment in place!

Nowhere in Article I does the word filibuster appear, and nowhere in the document is reference made to members of Congress having the power to block all bills that come before either House. The House and Senate can make their own rules and enforce them, and the filibuster is JUST a rule...not a constitutional mandated activity.


Article II, section 2 begins with the words "the President shall be the commander in chief..." The President, not the military commanders, head up the armed forces of the United States. General Douglas MacArthur and his many admirers were not aware of this, but President Truman set him straight and George Washington smiled from above.


Article IV, section 1 states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Could this mean that a gay couple married in Massachusetts is still married in South Carolina, or Texas, or Kentucky? Then section 2 states "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Oh drat, how could gays who are married in one state not be married in all states?

Article VI contains that pesky little supremacy clause which states "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...

This document that so many wrap themselves in and refer to regarding any trivial political whim is a very complicated thing. Those who toiled through the hot, steamy Philadelphia summer of 1787 wished to create a nation that was markedly different from the monarchies of Europe and more clearly defined than the flimsy structure provided by the Articles of Confederation. They were for the most part nationalists trying to bring the states under the national government while protecting the individual, internal interests of each. Will those who stand in the Well of the House chamber read the original Document? Those who are so intent on the original intent of the founders might be surprised (or not) at the protection of slavery with the three-fifths clause, the prohibition to ending the importation of slaves before 1808, and the granting of power to the Congress to pass a fugitive slave law. The Senate was originally elected by the state legislatures. The original intent of the Founders was not to give people too much power...the people were feared (just in case you wonder why the Electoral College exists). Do we really want to go back to this mindset? Some actually do. The creation of the Constitution must be considered within the time period it was written and it must be followed through the pains of the ante-bellum period, the ravages of the Civil War, the societal upheavals of industrialization, the emergence of "modern" America, two world wars, and a devastating economic collapse in order to fully understand the meaning of Madison's masterpiece. The words must be fused with the changes of time. A single individual cannot dictate what the Constitution means...that constitutes an opinion. The Supreme Court determines what the august document means. Constitutional case law is a convoluted, complicated aspect of Constitutional history that must be understood in order to "know" the meaning of THE CONSTITUTION.

Oh, then there are the Amendments...I have to go jog, later.