The Constitution Revisited
Before getting into my subject, I want to make one point very clear.
I am not an anarchist.
Neither am I the least bit interested in impugning the motives
or the intentions of the people who argued long and faithfully
back in 1787, putting the Constitution together,
whether they favored the Constitution or whether they didn't.
My purpose is simply to examine the instrument as it is and let you decide whether or not
the Constitution lives up to the portentous statements that have been made concerning
it.
Now, before turning to the document itself, I would like to turn to a statement which
appears in a little booklet published by the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government
and Relating to Patrick Henry.
Patrick Henry's opposition to the Constitution, along with many of the early patriots, was
so great that it had many people disturbed.
And here is what appears in this little booklet.
And I'm quoting.
It must have been an electric moment of the kind known in every parliamentary body.
Henry had just passed his 52nd birthday, but he was prematurely old.
He had served twice as governor, holding the office for five years, and had gained a reputation
as the state's foremost orator. His hostility to the Constitution had been the talk of Virginia
for the past nine months.
Mr. Chairman, he began, the public mind as well as my own is extremely uneasy. A year
ago, in the summer of 1787, the people were in a perfect repose. What extreme danger could
to justify the drastic measures here proposed.
The object was to sever the Confederacy by which the states had been bound together.
And for what?
Is the real existence of the country threatened?
Then Henry laid down the theme he was to develop constantly for the next three weeks.
This proposal of altering our Federal arrangement is of a most alarming nature.
You ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty.
For instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If this new government
will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they should be disappointed, their
liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. Then Henry pounced upon the preamble
fashioned by members of the Convention of 1787. He had the highest veneration for those
But, sir, what right had they to say, we, the people? Who authorized them to speak the language of we, the people, instead of we, the states? If the states are not the agents of this compact, then the instrument must provide for one great, consolidated, national government, at which point he yielded the floor.
of the Floor. There's more. That is a quotation from a booklet entitled When Virginia Joined
the Union, put out by the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Governments. And it relates
to the convention that was held in Virginia, during which time Patrick Henry, one of the
early patriots, attempted to defeat the ratification of the Constitution and was so successful
It is remarkable, as an orator, that he converted ten of the twelve Federalists present to switch
their votes. But he needed at least one more to bring it into a tie, or two more to win,
and he did not, so that the Constitution was ratified in Virginia by the narrowest of margins.
What I want to do now in the time that I have is to take a look at the Constitution itself.
It is a remarkably short and concise instrument. The word right does not appear in it, although
many people suppose that it is an instrument designed to protect their rights. As a matter
of fact, the omission is so glaring that the Bill of Rights had to be added. And of course
the word right does appear there in the First Ten Amendments. But in the body of the Constitution
It is totally lacking. This tends to show that the men who put the Constitution together
were not concerned with our rights, rather they were concerned with creating an instrument
of power, and the purpose, as is clearly shown in the instrument itself, was that it would
be an instrument of limitless power whenever they wanted to use it that way. Let me just
Let's take a few parts of the Constitution, obviously I will have to be brief, and then
I would suggest that you go and get a copy of it and read it, and understand what you
read while you read it.
Let me begin with the preamble.
This is the opening phrase, it's very short.
As a matter of fact, when I was in grade school I had to memorize it.
This is it, it's just one sentence.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote 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.
Now, those are very fair words. They sound very good. But have you ever taken the time to read them carefully to find out what they mean?
Let's do that now.
We, the people of the United States.
By the use of that phrase, there is a clear inference that the people of the United States either directly or through their representatives either wrote or approved of this instrument.
That is not true. That means that that phrase is essentially fraudulent.
This instrument was never examined by the people of the United States to find out whether or not they cared to approve of it.
None of them have approved of it, of their own free act and deed.
They have never been asked to, and they have never bound themselves voluntarily under the provisions in it.
The people who drew it up had no right to impose it upon them as law, and yet it says,
We, the people of the United States.
Not only is that the case, but I confess to the same uneasiness that Patrick Henry expressed.
If this is something, in fact, that the people have put together, it completely eclipses
any power or any sovereignty of the separate states, which was the thing that concerned him.
I am concerned on both counts. Clearly, this is an instrument to provide a totally powerful government.
Let me go on. We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.
Union
Now, let's examine that phrase, a more perfect union.
I'm not at all certain that I would favor that.
You see, the idea of a perfect union can be traced to Plato and his doctrine that there
must be a perfect society and that everyone is to have a place in that society and everyone
is to be under a captain at all times and give obedience to that captain at work or
I am a little more sympathetic to Zeno. His point of view was that the object is not to provide a perfect society, but to do your best to provide perfect individuals, improve the individual.
was that the object is not to provide a perfect society, but to do your best to provide perfect
individuals, improve the individual. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, came out with the
thought that if you do create a perfect society, but you have to deal with imperfect men, then you
would have to take these imperfect men and put them in a perfect society by force and oppression,
because they won't fit. How much better would it be to have the emphasis on improving the individuals
and then let each group of men provide whatever society or whatever instruments of society they
wish. But this clearly sets forth the proposition that we, you and I, the people of the United
States, are dedicated to forming a more perfect union. And I'm not at all certain that I would
would have approved that, had I been given the opportunity.
The next phrase is, establish justice. What does that mean? Establish means to found,
to do something for the first time, to erect something. Does that infer that there was
no justice prior to the Constitution? And what is meant by justice? Is it to be the
The concept of fair dealing, quid pro quo, something for something, or is this to be
a word and an expression that is to justify retroactive vengeance, the idea of punishing
someone?
It doesn't make the point clear, but it opens the door because it is going to establish
justice.
Clearly, that gives the opportunity for doing a little pioneer work, a little experimenting
in new areas that perhaps you and I might not like. Take the next phrase, ensure domestic tranquility.
What does that mean? Well, ensure is obvious. It means to guarantee, to make certain.
And tranquility is easy. We have pills for that now. You can have tranquility. It means absolute
calmness. But what is intended by the word domestic? Two obvious interpretations are possible.
One, domestic in contrast to foreign. In other words, we are to be tranquil here, no matter what is happening abroad, and that may be one of the meanings.
But also, it infers domestic in the sense of my home, as opposed to public.
And, for your information, in case you are unaware of it, both interpretations have been accepted.
Therefore, the Federal Government is empowered by this statement to interpose in my home
to make certain that I am tranquil.
Well, what if I don't want to be tranquil?
It makes no difference.
The Federal Government has the power here to interpose to make certain that I am tranquilized.
I am not certain.
In fact, I'm quite certain that I would never have approved of that.
Provide for the common defense.
What does that mean?
Well, I know what provide means. It means to pay for.
So the Federal Government is to pay for the common defense.
What is common defense?
Well, I suppose it's defense against any common danger.
What are the common dangers?
Well, obviously there would be the common danger of invasion from abroad,
or the danger of bank robbers, or arsonists, or murderers,
These are common dangers. But there are many others. Common dangers besetting man would be, of course, the lack of work, a lack of money, a lack of education, a lack of opportunity, bad health, bad breath, rats, you name it.
Almost anything that exists in the world could be viewed as a common danger.
Does this authorize the government to intervene in these areas?
Indeed it does.
Only recently the government appropriated over $10 million in order to do away with
the danger from rats.
It is authorized here under the Constitution to do that since rats represent a common danger.
Can you think of something that doesn't represent a common danger?
If it is abused, drinking too much water could drown you, taking too many aspirins could
kill you, eating too much meat can probably cause a heart attack, and not eating enough
could cause something else.
There is nothing that we are not in danger from.
This gives the government a wide-open door to move in and enact laws in order to provide
against any danger as long as we experience it on a common ground.
What does it say next? Promote the general welfare. Now, that's an interesting phrase.
Promote. That's a very active word. You pick it up from where it is and you promote it.
And it says general welfare. What does that mean? Or perhaps more properly, what doesn't
it mean? Is there anything that is excluded? General welfare. It could be anything. And
Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity
and so he'll have to pass it on to his children and so it goes. Is that a moral arrangement?
I very much doubt it. And then it says, do ordain and establish this constitution for
the United States. Now those are very solemn words. We the people do ordain and establish
this constitution. And I must tell you that in all candor and meaning no disrespect to
to anyone, that is a fraud. We the people have never done such a thing. We have no power
to do it. The people who put this together had no such right over even their contemporaries.
They never had any such right over us. Their wills and their wishes concerning posterity
have no more rightful control of us than the wills or wishes of George III, Henry VIII,
for Genghis Khan. There's nothing here that says that we have to do this. This is simply
the statement by some men who are now dead, who had no power, whatever, no rightful power,
over their contemporaries, and they never asked for it, they never submitted the document
to them, asked them to read it voluntarily, and to approve or disapprove, the whole thing
was simply put over upon the people.
And there it is.
Let me go a little deeper into it.
Unfortunately, in so brief a time, I can't go too far.
But let me turn to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and see what it says.
Keep in mind that you and I were told when we were youngsters—and we still tend to
to believe it, that the Constitution is an instrument of limited powers.
Let me read from Article 1, Section 8, what it says.
This is now not an amendment to the Constitution.
This is the body of the Constitution that has never been amended.
And you tell me where the limitation is.
I read now from Section 8, Article 1.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay
the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
But all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Let me go over that.
The Congress, it says, shall have power to do two things, to lay and collect.
Now, to lay means to levy. That is to say, Congress, a body of men who presumably have been elected by people whom they don't even know, because the parties voting do so by secret ballot, and hence no congressman knows who favored him in this particular, but in any case, these people who are called congressmen have the power to decide how much money that you have that they want.
The Theory of Money and Credit
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
But what does that mean?
Well that simply means that if the Congress is going to have a duty, an
impost or an excise in one state, it must be uniform with the same duty,
impost or excise in another state.
But at what level will the impost be set?
10%? 40%? 80%? 100%? 150%? It doesn't say. As long as it is uniform, that is all right.
And what of taxes? Well, there is no limit there at all, no modification at all. The
Congress simply has the power to lay and collect taxes. For what purpose? Well, to pay the
What debts? It doesn't say. Any debts. And provide for the common defense, whatever that may mean, and the general welfare, whatever that may mean.
Where is the limitation? That's what it says. That is precisely what it means.
Let me go on. Let me take the next phrase.
The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
That's it. The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
What does that mean?
Well, it means the Congress has the power to borrow money on your credit.
That's what it amounts to.
They don't borrow money against their own credit personally.
The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several
states and with the Indian tribes.
What does that mean?
It means that Congress can regulate the trade that occurs between this nation and foreign
nations, between the separate states and between the separate states and Indian tribes or between
the nations and Indian tribes or between the Indian tribes.
So this requires a definition as to what is the federal state, what is a separate state
and what is an Indian tribe.
Well, this has already been established, a test case many, many years ago has determined
where the Congress can regulate commerce.
The test case runs like this.
If a man raises chickens on his farm and also raises grain on the same farm by means of
which he feeds his own chickens, that man is in interstate commerce and can be regulated
by Congress.
Why would a man raising chickens on his own farm and raising the grain to feed his own
chickens be in interstate commerce?
is Obvious. You see, if the man did not feed his own chickens with his own grain, he would
have to go off his farm to buy it. And if he did so, conceivably the grain that he bought
might have crossed a state line, and therefore the fact that he does not go off could intervene
with interstate commerce negatively. You can see that. As a matter of fact, there is a
In a recent hearing, a window washer washing a window on a tall building had one of the
straps that tied him to the building break.
Only one.
Fortunately, there were two.
The other strap held, and he just bruised himself and skinned himself up a bit, but
no serious damage ensued.
But a hospitalization insurance action brought the matter into the courts, and the courts
ruled that the Congress could regulate window washers.
Want to know why?
Because as the window washer is washing the window, he can look into offices where there
There are telephones, and the telephones have lines that cross state boundaries, and consequently
the window washer is in interstate commerce.
That is the judge's ruling.
Well now that pretty well opens it up, doesn't it?
In other words, the Congress can regulate commerce.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question.
Let's suppose that you're sitting at home one day and a very dignified delegation suddenly
walks up onto your front porch and rings the bell.
Sir or Madam, we have been watching your career with great interest. We are a delegation of people from such and such a country, and we have decided that we would like to invite you to come over and become our dictator, because we think that under your rule we would have the best of everything.
And we have decided that we would like to invite you to come over and become our dictator, because we think that under your rule, we would have the best of everything.
And here's what we will give you. We will give you unlimited power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impose and excises.
Providing, of course, that the duties, impose and excises are uniform.
And nothing is said about taxes.
Additionally, you can run up any debts you like. They'll be authorized. And on top of
that, you can regulate commerce. May I ask you, as a budding dictator, what else you'd
want? Now, that is in the Constitution of the United States of America, presumably,
a limited instrument, an instrument of limited powers. Where is the limitation? If someone
The Congress shall have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on
the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.
The Congress has the power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high
seas and offenses against the law of nations.
That means that the Congress has the power to define as a piracy or felony a shipload
of vegetables crossing from the Bahamas to Miami.
That could be declared an act of piracy, or it could be declared a felony, and even on
the high seas, the Congress could order something done about it according to the Constitution.
Let me ask you this question. Suppose you picked up the Russian Constitution and read,
The Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union has the power to define and punish piracies and
and Felonies Committed on the High Seas and Offenses Against the Law of Nations.
Would that give you the impression that they intended to operate beyond their continental
limits?
It would mean.
It doesn't appear in the Russian Constitution.
That appears in our Constitution.
And I can quite understand why people reading that tend to put up signs saying, Yankee,
go home.
I think they're afraid of it.
You see, what's happened is they have learned to read English, and sometimes we Americans
haven't.
And they have read our Constitution, and we, you and I, we are not militant.
We don't want to do anything to anybody.
We want to live peaceful, productive lives.
But we end up traveling abroad because we like to do that, we like to meet our neighbors
in other countries, and we want to be good neighbors with them.
And they look at us, and there's a sort of a glint in their eye, and they say, we understand
all about you.
You Yankees are two-faced.
You and I are two-faced, we're just open and candid, but we haven't read this.
We don't know what it means.
They have read it.
They know what it means.
It's no wonder they don't trust us.
Or let me go just to one more.
If your heart isn't broken yet, perhaps this will do it.
Not that I intend that, but just get this, and it's in the same section.
The Congress shall have 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.
Now that particular clause is called the grab-bag clause in Washington, and attorneys there
know that if they can't get it through on any other grounds, they just cite that and
that opens it up.
That doesn't open the door. It actually takes the door off the hinges.
I suggest that you get a copy of the Constitution and read it with an open mind and understand
what it says. Unfortunately, the amendments to the Constitution do not take this away.
They in essence have provided the best part of the Constitution, but nonetheless what
I have just read you has never been modified nor amended out of existence.