Has the role of the Federal Government changed in the past 231 years?

[tn_8tiv]

Does the current Constitution of the United States adequately define the role of the Federal Government? We live in a society where global boundaries are becoming less significant. Additionally, the role of the individual states is of lesser importance than it was at the time of the original Constitution given the speed of communications and travel today.

I believe the original writers of this document stated the overall concept of the Constitution in the preamble. The question arises when we try to determine just what these concepts really mean.

"To establish Justice" certainly means to establish uniform laws and methods of applying those laws. States remain the primary determinate of civil and criminal law with the Congress of the United States as the arbiter and the U. S. Judicial branch the interpreter. Should the Federal Government take a more active role in establishing criminal and civil law?

To insure domestic tranquillity begins to be a little more ambiguous. Does this mean that dissension is wrong? Just what is domestic tranquillity?

To provide for the common defense is obvious and I can't imagine there being any question about this being a strong requirement of the Federal Government, however, where does defense end and aggression begin? How do we relate "domestic tranquility" to "common defense" when the use of the military or Federal law enforcement agencies disrupt this tranquility?

To promote the general welfare really becomes ambiguous. What is "general" welfare? Is this according to the majority or does it mean those conditions that fall within some mean distribution? Does this give the Federal Government the right to establish programs such as a national health care system? Does this give the Federal Government the right to legislate and fund national educational systems? The amendments to the original Constitution have focused largely on defining this single issue. How can we rationalize General Welfare against our rights as individuals without sacrificing some of our individuality?

The 8th Article of the Constitution I believe made an attempt to define these concepts in more specific detail. Then, the first ten amendments made a significant contribution to these definitions. I personally have always been a strong advocate for the individual rights of States since this more adequately represents a smaller cross-section of people and thus can best express the sentiments of those people. However, having traveled across borders (both domestic and international), I can begin to see a need for a more uniform set of guidelines that become National in scope…even International in many cases. In the areas of Health Care, Education, and the application of uniform voting guidelines it now appears we should reevaluate the role of the individual states in favor of a role for the Federal Government. For this country to remain strong, there must not be a significant disparity between how the individual states apply these guidelines.


How do other members of this board view this issue? If you are no a citizen of the United States, what is your view on this subject?

 

[phrodeau]

preamble n. A preliminary statement, esp. the introduction to a formal document that explains its purpose.

The language of the preamble is not formal. It can be omitted or ignored. The US Constitution is found in the Articles and Amendments. You will find your answers there.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Does the current Constitution of the United States adequately define the role of the Federal Government?

Yes.

What you're asking in the rest of your post is "does the Constitution (I'm taking our the word "current" because the Constitution we have, even with the amendments, is the Constituion we've always had) define not just the role of the Federal Government, but the Federal Government itself?", and that the Constitution goes way out of its way to not do.

 

[alltherage]

The nature of the constitution by intent of the writers was to be as vague in specific outlines as possible. They did this in order to provide a document that could expand and change with the times. The greatest period of threat and change to constitution occured during the civil war. It can be measured in the change in description of what the United States were. That change occured when we changed from the united states are to the united states is. The federal government became the preeminent power after that war and that massive change occured only after the bloodiest war in our history was over. One can argue states rights till they are blue in the face but the argument holds no sway.

The writers of the constitution made it difficult but no impossible to change. There was method to this idea. The constitution protects us from tirants and the mod in equel measure and I believe it continues to do so.

 

[tn_8tiv]

Yes.

What you're asking in the rest of your post is "does the Constitution (I'm taking our the word "current" because the Constitution we have, even with the amendments, is the Constituion we've always had) define not just the role of the Federal Government, but the Federal Government itself?", and that the Constitution goes way out of its way to not do.

Excuse me for disagreeing in principle. I believe if you read Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution, you will find specific responsiblities detailed for the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. True, other Articles define the balance of the Federal Government. In fact, Section 8 ends with the following:

"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"

I believe the word "Powers" is very clear. If I understand your response, you feel the Constitution goes out of its way not to define the role of the Government. Then why does it, in fact, give the Legislative Branch the Power of "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper..."? And more importantly, if it gives this power (or role)to the Legislative Branch, has this section of the Government adequately accomplished it's duty, given the shrinking world?

 

[alltherage]

Excuse me for disagreeing in principle. I believe if you read Article 8 of the Constitution, you will find specific responsiblities detailed for the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. True, other Articles define the balance of the Federal Government. In fact, Article 8 ends with the following:

"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"

I believe the word "Powers" is very clear. If I understand your response, you feel the Constitution goes out of its way not to define the role of the Government. Then why does it, in fact, give the Legislative Branch the Power of "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper..."? And more importantly, if it gives this power (or role)to the Legislative Branch, has this section of the Government adequately accomplished it's duty, given the shrinking world?

They did not write a clause that said "and do this efficiently and without review. I grow frustrated with the slow pace of change in government but then I remember hearing Henry Steele Commeger say he feared efficency in government. The very nature of the give and take a struggle for power on each issue that comes before the congress difuses there power to concieve and carry out a Master Plan. I am greatful for that.

 

[tn_8tiv]

They did not write a clause that said "and do this efficiently and without review. I grow frustrated with the slow pace of change in government but then I remember hearing Henry Steele Commeger say he feared efficency in government. The very nature of the give and take a struggle for power on each issue that comes before the congress difuses there power to concieve and carry out a Master Plan. I am greatful for that.

I agree. I believe the checks and balances put in place are very essential. Debate and dissension are a vital element in the success of our Government over the years. That's not my premise or question. The question, simply stated, is should there be action by the Federal Legislative branch to pass laws that by their nature redefine their own role? (Having just written that, it does sound wrong, doesn't it?). But, if Congress were to pass legislation providing for a National Health Care System or a Uniform Educational System, would this not be redefining the role of the Federal Government? There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically grants Congress the right to govern the health care or education of individuals. It does state that any power not granted shall be withing the rights of the states.

"The power of the federal government is not absolute. The tenth Amendment specifically states
that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. See U.S. Const. amend. X." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html)

 

[Unclebill]

To answer your question first, yes, that role has changed markedly. The better question, "SHOULD it have changed?" is a resounding NO. Most of the changes have come about in the past 150 years with the most egregious coming within the last 70 years.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
Does the current Constitution of the United States adequately define the role of the Federal Government? We live in a society where global boundaries are becoming less significant. Additionally, the role of the individual states is of lesser importance than it was at the time of the original Constitution given the speed of communications and travel today.

I believe the original writers of this document stated the overall concept of the Constitution in the preamble. The question arises when we try to determine just what these concepts really mean.

If you refer to the Declaration of Independence, you will find the definitive declaration of the purpose of our Federal government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

The Founders who constructed our Federal government realized that the only legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the rights (and hence the property) of its citizens or to act as a neutral arbiter in legitimate disputes arising from misunderstandings, civil law.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
"To establish Justice" certainly means to establish uniform laws and methods of applying those laws. States remain the primary determinate of civil and criminal law with the Congress of the United States as the arbiter and the U. S. Judicial branch the interpreter. Should the Federal Government take a more active role in establishing criminal and civil law?

The U. S. Constitution does not undertake this authority. From my perception, the reason it did not was that the men of that time realized that if they attempted to do so, the Constitution would never have been adopted because the states individually would not be willing to give up their power over their individual little fiefdoms.

Also, at that time, the speed (or lack of it) in communication would perhaps have made less viable a Federal system of criminal laws although I'm not very convinced of that.

As a Libertarian, I see no reason, especially today. for having 50 individual fiefdoms, each of which establishes their own set of criminal statutes with different definitions of crimes, with different standards of guilt and with different penalties and latitude of discretion in application of those penalties.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
"To insure domestic tranquillity begins to be a little more ambiguous. Does this mean that dissension is wrong? Just what is domestic tranquillity?

This I perceive as essentially to stave off anarchy. Dissent is not prohibited by any law nor should it be. But that dissent is not legitimate when it begins to inflict injury or property damage to innocent people and that I believe is where the concept of Domestic Tranquility applies.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
To provide for the common defense is obvious and I can't imagine there being any question about this being a strong requirement of the Federal Government, however, where does defense end and aggression begin? How do we relate "domestic tranquility" to "common defense" when the use of the military or Federal law enforcement agencies disrupt this tranquility?

First, defense is an action taken in response to an action or threat of action. This is the important distinction between defense and aggression. The idea of Common Defence was expressed in the Federalist Papers. The idea was for the Federal government to organize and maintain the military forces for the purpose of defending all the states collectively. Considering the alternative that each state would have the need to sustain separate military forces for their protection. This latter method would be wasteful because of the necessity for redundancy. It also realized some risk for feudalistic competitions among the individual states should their government fall under the influence of politicians of a tyrannical mentality.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
To promote the general welfare really becomes ambiguous. What is "general" welfare? Is this according to the majority or does it mean those conditions that fall within some mean distribution? Does this give the Federal Government the right to establish programs such as a national health care system? Does this give the Federal Government the right to legislate and fund national educational systems? The amendments to the original Constitution have focused largely on defining this single issue. How can we rationalize General Welfare against our rights as individuals without sacrificing some of our individuality?

Let's look at your last question first. If one must rationalize General Welfare against our rights as individuals, then the idea of individual rights is not understood properly since there is no conflict between the two in a rational sense.

General welfare I perceive as similar to, almost redundant of, domestic tranquility. The welfare of the society as a whole is to my perception the meaning of general welfare. And in a rational frame of reference, how can the welfare of all, i. e., the general welfare, be preserved if the welfare of even one citizen is allowed to be placed in jeopardy? After all, the society is only an abstract entity. Society is an abstract term to describe the organization of multitudes of individual people living in geographic proximity in an organized and cooperative fashion.

The legitimate purpose of any government is to protect the rights of its citizens. As long as it does so, it necessarily assures the general welfare. But when a government acts to violate the rights of its citizens no matter how large the number nor how minor the violation, it can no longer be promoting or protecting the general welfare.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
The 8th Article of the Constitution I believe made an attempt to define these concepts in more specific detail. Then, the first ten amendments made a significant contribution to these definitions. I personally have always been a strong advocate for the individual rights of States since this more adequately represents a smaller cross-section of people and thus can best express the sentiments of those people. However, having traveled across borders (both domestic and international), I can begin to see a need for a more uniform set of guidelines that become National in scope...even International in many cases. In the areas of Health Care, Education, and the application of uniform voting guidelines it now appears we should reevaluate the role of the individual states in favor of a role for the Federal Government. For this country to remain strong, there must not be a significant disparity between how the individual states apply these guidelines.

How do other members of this board view this issue? If you are no a citizen of the United States, what is your view on this subject?

Since there is no Article 8 in the U. S. Constitution and noting the specific idea you address, I presume you refer to Article 1 Section 8 which explicitly defines the powers and authorities of the Congress.

The Constitution is organized as follows in its addressing the structure of our Federal government:

• Article 1 - Legislative Branch
• Article 2 - Executive Branch
• Article 3 - Judicial Branch
• Article 4 - Financing the Federal Government
• Article 5 - Amending the Constitution
• Article 6 - Federal Government Debts
• Article 7 - Ratification

Following Article 7 are the Amendments.

Article 1 Section 8 does not make a significant contribution to these definitions, it makes a complete and explicit statement of them. This section delineates and enumerates the specific responsibilities and power of the legislature. It does not authorize them to exceed their authority as expressed here without amending the Constitution to do so. And the amendment process was made stringent to discourage changes that were not genuinely a necessity. Do some reading of the Federalist Papers and you'll find much of this information.

As for being an advocate for the rights of the states, you need to come to a proper understanding of the concept of rights. Rights are the province of the individual, a living human being. Right is a term that must apply equally to every man or it is irrational to call it a right. It must also be understood that a right is innate, i. e., it is derivative of the nature of the entity. That means that being a living human being is the source of your rights. Rights are not the result of government largess, political decree or any other beings whim, wish or thought. This is the concept embodied in the Founders statement unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.

They finally in the foundation of a government explicitly acknowledged that rights were beyond the province of government, i. e., beyond government's legitimate control. They further explicitly defined the idea of government as being the protector of those rights (see quote above from Declaration).

What a government has is authority or power, i. e., the legitimate agent of force in a society, NOT rights since government is not a man, i. e., living human being, but an abstract concept implemented by man and of necessity using men to enforce its authority. But these men with the power of enforcement have no rights that differ from yours or mine. They do have an authority that we do not by virtue of their position of public trust and responsibility.

And specifically because they have this authorization to use force, they must be constrained in the use of that force to its legitimate application. The purpose of the U. S. Constitution was to place clear and distinct limits on the power of those in government, i. e., limit their ability to use force against other free men in this society.

So long as the United States is a sovereign nation, the Constitution is the protection afforded its citizens from our government. But that protection is only as good so long as the men who hold public office, those who wield the power of government, respect the limitations of that power and the rights of the citizens of the United States of America to be free men making the decisions on their own judgement rather than having those choices dictated to them as they are in China, as they were in the Soviet Union, or are in Somalia or Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq, or ...

If you read the Constitution, note there is no provision in it for Congress to be involved in private enterprise in any fashion whatsoever. Nor is there any authorization for it to be involved in health care, in providing economic support or benefit for any person or organization nor any of the myriad of enterprises Congress pursues today with a passion that the truly zealous can only envy. There is likewise no provision permitting Congress to be involved in education nor for it to operate the Social Security system. In fact, if a private citizen tried to operate such a system as Social Security, they would be tried and imprisoned for running a fraud (Ponzi scheme), as a criminal which is what they would be.

But today Congress operates that which is acknowledged as a criminal enterprise. By their actions, they have degenerated government to the status of criminal thug because they are acting in a criminal manner. Yet they perpetuate their behavior and expect to be respected, even lauded for their behavior.

This being the case, how can the general welfare be protected or assured?

The founders understood that government produces nothing. It is not the government's purpose to provide for the sustenance of anyone. They understood that what government consumes, it takes (by force implicitly) from the citizens.

They also understood that it is a contradiction for government to be the protector of a citizen's rights if at the same time it violates the rights of another citizen due its action. Because they recognized these concepts, they forbade the Federal government the power to undertake any action that would infringe on the right of one citizen for the benefit of another. This has been understood by our legislators in the past. Why is it no longer understood? Do they not read the Constitution or do they simply not care since no one exercise restraint over them?

This link applies: http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm

Originally posted by Dixon Carter Lee
Yes.

What you're asking in the rest of your post is "does the Constitution (I'm taking our the word "current" because the Constitution we have, even with the amendments, is the Constituion we've always had) define not just the role of the Federal Government, but the Federal Government itself?", and that the Constitution goes way out of its way to not do.

Dixon, I have to disagree with you also. The Constitution explicitly identifies the functions of the Federal government and specifically limits its scope of authority. That was and is its entire purpose.

Originally posted by tn_8tiv
"The power of the federal government is not absolute. The tenth Amendment specifically states
that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. See U.S. Const. amend. X."

I disagree that the Federal government's authority is not absolute. It is and must be for the government to achieve its objective and purpose as defined in the Constitution.

Here I use absolute in the context of not being subject to the dissent of the individual states, i. e., not to be doubted or questioned. For example, one state may NOT enter into a treaty with a foreign government. That is an absolute and necessarily legitimate power of the Federal government for reasons clearly evidenced in the Federalist Papers.

The Federal government's authority, while absolute, is also stringently defined and delimited by the Constitution. That it operates far beyond its legitimate authority is a problem resulting from corrupt legislators who do not respect their oath of office and their obligation to obey the law which constrains their authority, i. e., the Constitution. Similarly the failing of the Supreme Court to exercise their duty and authority under the Constitution to require Congress to live within the legal constraints specified has permitted the persistence and expansion of the Congressional bent to legislate themselves into a position of ever increasing authority and power.

If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I suggest two things to read for some interesting background. The Federalist Papers is one source. There were a total of 83 (I believe, may be 1 or 2 off on the count) published to gather support for the adoption of the Constitution by its advocates and builders. The second is The Law by Frederic Bastiat, a French philosopher (1801-1850). The latter is not so much related directly to the Constitution but Bastiat was a great admirer of the United States in its government structure. His work is more a philosophical discussion of the idea of freedom, rights and the law.

If you really want to dig deeper, I suggest reading Ayn Rand's works dealing with Objectivism, the first (and to my knowledge, only) intellect (as opposed to faith) based philosophical system.