Reading the Constitution Elucidates Applicable Ideals

Every year politicians promise (and, unfortunately, deliver) more and more government services. Democratic candidates promise government healthcare and welfare and usually oppose cuts to existing programs. A Republican president and a Republican Congress recently added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. With these massive expansions in government, it's fitting to examine what the Founding Fathers intended the role of government to be.

No one can claim with a straight face that the powers of the federal government have not exceeded what the Framers intended. The Framer's intent was to create a limited government that protected the rights of the individual. They saw government only as a necessary evil, as James Madison aptly states in The Federalist No. 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Some government is necessary. Citizens have to be protected from foreign aggressors, and the laws of the land must be enforced. But the role of government was not intended to be a provider of charity. James Madison, who is recognized as the Father of the Constitution, said on the floor of Congress in 1794, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." How does this mesh with today's welfare, social security, government regulations, and pork barrel expenditures?

Isn't also amazing that Madison could not find justification for "benevolence" in the document he played a major role in authoring, but today's politicians and activist judges can? Do they know more about the Constitution than Madison?

What about the general welfare clause in the preamble of the Constitution, you ask? According to Jefferson, "Congress has not unlimited powers to promote for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Where the founders heartless? No. They just believed charitable purposes were best served by charities, religious organizations, and caring individuals. They trusted Americans to help others without being coerced into doing so, and felt government should not be a charity organization.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, outlined the ideals of an effective government: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

The Founders viewed any expansion of government with great suspicion. In 1788 Thomas Jefferson prophetically said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and governments to gain ground." In the year 2004 anyone who cannot see this happening must be either a liar or delusional.

Can this process be reversed? It would be difficult to say the least. The process of eroding liberties is like a rock rolling down hill, continuing to go faster and faster. It has been occurring almost since inception. Many Americans would be shocked to know that America did not always have an income tax. It was not imposed until 1913 with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment.

At least the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in the proper way, by amending the Constitution. Franklin D. Roosevelt sought no such amendment when he imposed his New Deal and the massive expansion of government that accompanied it. In fact, FDR even attempted to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with New Deal supporters in order to get his scheme validated. The "Great Society" policies of Lyndon B. Johnson continued the process, with more government intrusions, and more "benevolence." That's not to say Roosevelt and Johnson didn't accomplish positives (FDR was a heroic leader in WWII and LBJ passed necessary civil rights legislation), but they expanded the "nanny state" to astronomical levels from which it has not receded.

President Bush isn't innocent either. Pork barrel projects are out of hand and the new expansion of Medicare only fosters the already bloated federal budget. Bush is certainly better than his Democratic opponents, but he should be making the case for limited government to the American people instead of buying votes. He should follow the lead of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and the other founders, not FDR and LBJ.

The Founders envisioned a free, limited government providing only the necessities outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans today know little about this document. The Constitution established the most successful attempt at liberty in the world history. Men and women have and continue to fight and die to protect it. All Americans would be well served to read this remarkable document, and apply its ideals to government today.

John Brown is a senior in political science at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column originally appeared in the January 15, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, available here.