Do the Constitution and the Powers of the Federal
Government Pertain to You?(Part 1 of 3)
By Robert Greenslade & Claude Ellsworth
Since the signing of the Constitution for the United States of America on
September 17, 1787, there has been an ongoing debate as to the true
intent of the document. The focal point of the debate is the nature of
the Constitution and the character of the federal government. Did the
Constitution establish a national government, with unlimited legislative
authority throughout the United States, or did the several States create
a federal government, with limited enumerated powers, which concern the
collective interests of the States?
If the Constitution established a national form of government, then
Congress would have been granted general legislative authority over all
persons and things throughout the several States. In the alternative, if
the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated
powers, which concern the collective interests of the States, then
Congress could not have been granted this power. In the authors' opinion,
this is the most important question facing the American people because it
brings into question the constitutionality of congressional legislation
being applied directly to the people of the several States.
In order to understand the nature of the Constitution and the character
of the federal government, it is necessary to trace the evolution of the
United States beginning with the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration Of Independence
The words used in the Declaration show that the document was a
declaration of independence for the Colonies, not the people as such. In
fact, it is subtitled as "The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America."
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as
Free and independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts
and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Following the signing of the Declaration, it was proposed that the
thirteen united States, not the people collectively, enter into a union
or confederation for their mutual security.
The Articles Of Confederation
On November 15, 1777, the thirteen united States, in Congress assembled,
agreed to a plan of confederation. Unanimous ratification was
accomplished when Maryland, on March 1, 1781, ratified the Articles of
Confederation. The Articles, which were federal in nature, established a
union or compact between the thirteen united States. Under the Articles,
each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence. They also
retained every power, jurisdiction and right that was not expressly
delegated to their general government.
Article III shows that neither the people nor the federal government was
a party to the union established between the several States.
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of
friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general
welfare, binding themselves to assist each other... (emphasis
Under the Articles, Congress had no power to pass any law that applied
directly to the people of the several States.
Defects In The Articles
By 1786 it had become apparent that the Articles had several defects and
were in need of revision. First, was the inability of Congress to
raise sufficient revenue from the individual States. Second, was
the inability of Congress to control commerce between the member States
and with foreign nations. On September 11, 1786, five States met at
Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss defects in the existing federal system of
government. As a result, it was recommended that the States send
delegates to Philadelphia in May of 1787 for the "sole and
express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" and
rendering "the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of
Government & the preservation of the Union."
The Federal [Constitutional] Convention
When the Federal Convention convened in May of 1787, there were two opposing factions. One side pushed for a strong "national" system of government, while the other favored a revision of the federal system of government established by the Articles of Confederation.
On May 29, Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, gave a speech in which he enumerated perceived defects in the Articles. He concluded his remarks by introducing a set of fifteen resolutions that he hoped the Convention would adopt as the "leading principles whereon to form a new government." Randolph's proposed resolutions would have consolidated the individual States into one nation with them becoming subordinate or nonexistent. After nearly two months of heated debate, the Convention rejected the national plan put forth by Randolph. The result of what transpired thereafter sparked a debate that continues to this day.
The Anti Federalists
Immediately following the signing of the proposed constitution in the Federal Convention, its opponents, known as the Anti-federalists, began writing essays critical of the document. They argued that the adoption of the proposed constitution would effect a change in the existing federal system of government. The Anti-federalists asserted that adoption of the proposed constitution would result in a consolidation of the States.
From October of 1787 to April 1788, a series of sixteen essays, written under the pseudonym Brutus, appeared in the New York Journal. The essays were a detailed critique of the proposed Constitution. In essay number one, the author stated that the first question to be addressed was:
[W]hether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?
The essay went on to state:
If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
The Anti-federalist position was expressed very succinctly in a document signed by 21 of the dissenting members of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention [Pennsylvania adopted the Constitution by a vote of 46 to 23]:
We dissent, secondly, because the powers vested in congress by the constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government. (emphasis not added)
They concluded this part of their dissent by stating:
Thus we have fully established the position, that the powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one government, which even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done without the sacrifice of all liberty.
The proponents of the proposed constitution, the Federalists, responded to these assertions with a series of eighty-five essays commonly known as the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist essays, published under the pseudonym Publius, were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. In essay No. 40, Madison, who has been referred to as the father of the Constitution, addressed the argument that ratification of the proposed constitution would change the nature of the general government:
The truth is that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.
He went on to support his assertion in much more detail in essay No. 45:
If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL powers. The regulations of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. (Emphasis not added)
The proposed constitution, as stated by Madison, was simply a modification of the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation. Thus, there would be no change in the nature of the general government. The federal government would remain the general government of the several States.
This article, "Do the Constitution and the Powers of the Federal Government Pertain to You?, is in response to correspondence from Sierra Times readers who requested more information about the Constitution and the powers of the federal government. We have spent many years doing research in what we call "the forgotten books" in an attempt to resurrect the true intent of the Constitution. We liken this to a monopoly game where the rules of the game are set in stone. The Constitution, as far as the powers of the federal government are concerned, constitutes the rules of the game. These rules are fixed and have a precise meaning based on the intent of those who crafted them. The problem flows from the fact that two players in the game, the several States and American people, have lost their copy of the rules while the other player, the federal government, is cheating by redefining the rules and changing the rules as the game unfolds. Until the States and the American people rediscover the rulebook and understand those rules, the federal government will always win the game. It is hoped this brief article on the Constitution will stimulate debate and help resurrect the rulebook.
Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
Permission to reprint/republish
granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL.
www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2003
SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
|When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform.|
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. www.cptexas.org. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas © 2002 (unless otherwise noted).