The Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States of America is a major obstacle in the way of those who would exert power nationally.

When you are dealing with a mega-population, and each individual loses their own identity in a sea of averages and metrics, it is much easier to simply take an expedient measure that seems to make sense philosophically and apply it than it would be to actually craft a measure that addressed the individuals needs properly.  It is hard enough to come up with a suitable rule that would satisfy all the people in an average lunchroom, let alone the hundreds of millions of citizens in a nation this size.

Enter the Constitution.  This document was drafted to make sure that the individual’s rights were not lost in a sea of expedient federal bureaucracy.  Many people believe that the Constitution should be shiftable, adaptable, bendable to change with the standards of society at the time.  That assumes that the Constitution is an all-knowing answer book to all problems, and it is not.  Our Constitution is, however, the operating plans for the type of government that was ratified by this nation.  You cannot simply ask the Constitution like it was a magic 8 ball and get the answer.  It is not that kind of set of laws.

It is the fundamental assessment that a democratically enabled constitutional republic needs to derive it’s power from the bottom up, not the top down, and that the farther you get from the individual the fewer rights of regulation and governance you should have.  In other words, the Constitution is much better at telling you specifically what you are not allowed to do than in telling you how to do the things you are.

Because the founders hoped for a long, long lasting society based on this set of structural laws, they wrote it so that it applies to any time, and any set of social conventions, as long as the structure of the democratically enabled constitutional republic is the government type.  And it is, as I have not been able to find any notice in any history book where a continental convention was called and a different government was put in place by a supermajority of the people.  So it does not have to be interpreted, it does not have to be shifted.  It can be altered by amendment, but that is the power of the people, not the power of the government, to do so.

Some federal officials have been angered by the Constitution from the very beginning – it stands in the way of many of them doing the things they want, gaining their legacies, filling their coffers and decorating their thrones.  But what it does not do is prohibit successfully addressing any problem the Federal Government is allowed to deal with – it just assures that the solution to any perceived problem is not too costly in liberty to the people of the nation, even if it takes away from the power and liberty of the Federal Government.  The rights that must be protected are the rights of people, not the rights of bureaus, companies, organizations, geographical regions.  People.

And the Constitution, through the 10^th amendment (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.) states that only those areas which are specifically stated as powers of the Federal Government within the Constitution can be addresses – if they are not listed, they are not within the scope and mandate of the Federal Government.

Now if you think that the Constitution stands in the way of our Federal Government building it’s powers to become the kind of national top-down and omnipotent power that exists in most monarchies and empires, you are absolutely right.  Many Federal officials are furious that they cannot be part of such a powerful organization, that they cannot exercise might and demand obedience like they could if they were an emperor or king.  But you cannot have that kind of authority associated with seats of Federal power unless you are willing to destroy most of the liberties of the individuals, and the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the liberties of the people.  It thus, by necessity, takes the teeth out of any threats the Federal Government wants to make against the people. But it does not take the teeth out of the things the founders knew were important Federal duties.  It provides for national defense, a limited oversight and management of interstate commerce, and the responsibility of maintaining a national currency, among other (but not too many other) things.

If you think that the Constitution sets up a system in which a few people are elected to rule over many, to set up laws and systems they think are best regardless of the people they were elected by, you are wrong.  The Constitution was set up to make sure it was followed.  Our representatives are not rulers or governors, they are simply the built-in buffer between a public that is not trained in all the details of the law and the people that would sign and enact laws.  They are not supposed to bring their agendas, they are simply supposed to make sure they follow the law when bringing the voices of their constituents to the Government.  So while powerful people at the top level of Federal Government might make good case that they have been granted the right to address a topic under such a vague statement as ‘promote the general welfare’, they only have a right to do so when the representatives clear the way by assuring that addressing such a topic is their desire.  The representatives have administration duties, but the legislation duties of the nation belong to the people due not to a single clause in the Constitution, but due to the system of Government it declares.

When the representatives start to fancy themselves as the ultimate power, when they start to believe they have the right as just over 500 men to decide what is right for the entire nation, when we have politicians guilty of chronic manipulation of the electoral system in order to place people who will act outside the interests of the electorate, when we have a significant number of men in Congress who are willing to go to any length to see that their desires, and not those of the people, are fulfilled, we have a staggering problem, one that may not be fixable without drastic measures.  Once the political process becomes so corrupt that people no longer trust it as the method to redress their grievances, then the Constitution provides another right of the public – the right to correct by means directly attached to their Creator-bestowed rights the imbalances in the system.  Tragically, in the past, most often this has meant violence and destruction, but luckily today we are blessed in this country to have people who are more even-headed and moderately tempered than we have had in the past, people who are more willing to accept some governance from the top before they start to believe they have lost too much.  We are lucky at this point to have a population that still wants to talk, still wants to engage, wants to avoid the pitfalls the past points out.  But no patience lasts forever, and at some time people will come to the belief that there are no more civil recourses available.  That is why it is SO imperative that we elect strong, determined, Independent people this election cycle – we can avert disaster, but it will take a drastic turnover among the seats of power.

So when I say I am a strict Constitutionalist, it means that one of two things will happen when legislation is presented to me.  First, if the problem addressed is not the right of the Federal Government to address (gun control, for example.  The Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal Government to infringe on the right to bear arms, and so without the ability to control gun ownership, the Federal Government has no right to address or introduce legislation that would limit gun ownership.), then I would sit down and block the progress of any such legislation.  If legislation were introduced that was within the scope and mandate of the Federal Government, I would block any solutions that violated the Constitution AS WRITTEN, and would be active in finding a solution that would not violate the Constitution.  But most importantly, I will fight just as hard, and play all the Washington games when needed, but with a twist – I would make sure the message I was championing, the side I was supporting, was not that of the parties, not the special interests, not the minority that holds to unconstitutional ideals, not the President himself.  It would be the people finally having their own bully, when necessary, in a culture of bullying.  It would be the people having a dealer at the table, not just the house.

The Federal Government is limited in what it can address, and is told what solutions it may not enact.  Federal Government may create a law that helps reduce the numbers and types of bank robberies, but it cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms to do so, it has to use other means.  Thus there is plenty of important work for the Federal Government to do.  There is a real need for creativity and civic value, but there is no room for would be monarchs and emperors.

The only way for the Government of, by, and for the people to work is when the people, not the governors, lead.  Our system was designed to stand in the way of the agendas of those who would aspire to kingship, and to reward those who protected the individual liberties of the individual citizen

I am one of you, not a Governor or Regent.  I simply ask for the chance to protect your rights as individuals, and the opportunity to remind Congressmen that their voice is no more important than yours, and that Congress has no rights – it is not a living being, it only has responsibilities to the individual citizens.  And if it cannot address a problem in a way suitable to the individual citizens, it must relinquish it’s efforts and pass the project to the next most local level of Government.

Christopher Nogy