Broken Promises

The Constitution is the document which created our federal government and supposedly empowers and constrains it. It is a covenant between the Government and the People. A fixed point of reference. Changes occur through the intentionally slow, difficult process of amendment. That is the only evolutionary process permitted. There are no penumbras or emanations. Announcements of the Supreme Court or legislation do not alter its fundamental fabric. Or at least, they are not supposed to. These bodies are creations of the Constitution and subordinate to it. That which is created is never greater than the creator. Everything the federal government does is supposed to be directly traceable to specific empowering language in Article 2, Section 8, or one of the amendments. Not some vague, ambiguous Supreme Court interpretation of the infamous Commerce Clause. Without a fixed point of reference we the People have no guarantee of our freedoms and liberties. If the federal government is not constrained by the Constitution then it is really constrained by nothing other than the capricious whims of maniacal politicians. That makes one shudder. Anarchy and tyranny by any other name would smell just as foul. I contend that the federal government has broken its covenant with the American People. It has jettisoned the Constitution and much of what it now engages in is de facto extra-constitutional; thus unauthorized and illegal. Sadly, anyone who points this out is laughed at and dismissed as a throw-back hick. I doubt the Framers what have appreciated such a label.
For example, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was recently interviewed by Human Events reporter Terence Jeffrey, as reported in the November, 2007 edition of Imprimis. “ Mr. Jeffrey asked her is she could ‘point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.’ Her reply shows that she knew the bearing of the inquiry: ‘I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students.’ Mr. Jeffrey persisted: ‘It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?’ The Secretary replied: ‘I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.’ Mr. Jeffrey reports that he did not get his answer. This is the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of her office.”
Well, I’m no constitutional scholar either, but I can read it. The beauty of the document is that it is written so that nearly anyone can read and understand it. It means exactly what it says. Let me help you Madam Secretary, there is no authorizing language in the Constitution for a federal Department of Education, and thus your department is truly illegal, short of an amendment. And yes, it may some day be abolished, as it should. Education is truly a local function.
So, if the federal government is not required to abide by the letter of the Constitution are we the people required to abide by laws of the federal government when they exceed its constitutional authority? What power do we have to enforce the Constitution upon the federal government? All three branches are in it together. We can’t elect enough good people fast enough to make any substantive changes.
One if by land, two if by sea.