Dakota Beacon

“The structure of government designed by the Founding Fathers is the truly unique and powerful features of the American Constitution.” This was stated by Supreme Court Justice Antonia Scalia in an address to the Heritage Foundation’s President’s Club earlier this month. He went on to say: “The Bill of Rights, often help us as the highest expression of American freedom. The Constitution’s limits on government power, for example the division of legislative power between the House and Senate and the difference manner of election for the two bodies, ensure the Bill of Rights is more than just words. Even the Soviet Union had a robust bill of rights, but this was a mere parchment barrier since the rest of the country’s constitution placed no limits on the exercise of dictatorial powers.”

          Justice Scalia, a proponent of “Originalism”, applies the meaning and definition of the Constitution in the context of the time they were written. This interpretation is contrary to those who believe the Constitution is a “living document”, and it’s meaning should be reinterpreted to “adjust” to the times. It is my opinion that Justice Scalia is correct and those who think otherwise would rather have the “rule of men” than what the Constitution guarantees, which is the “rule of law”.

           It was eleven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence when a small group of delegates meet in Philadelphia in 1777 initially to amend the earlier constitution of 1781, the Articles of Confederation. However, rather than amend this first United States Constitution, they completely rewrote it and began debate on establishing a new, stronger Constitution. (Incidentally, a seeming little known fact is that John Hanson, an American Patriot, was actually the first president of the United States, followed by six others who were elected for only a one year term under the Articles of Confederation. George Washington was the first president under the new Constitution adopted in 1888.)

            From the very beginning of this debate there were differences between the delegates as to what this new document would contain and how the new government should be formed. Alexander Hamilton was a “monarchist” who believed that the United States should be patterned after the British Monarch with a lifetime king. He was mostly alone in this believe and he finally joined George Washington, James Madison and others who supported a federal system with a strong central government. This faction was referred to as “federalist”. Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the other faction wanted a weak central government with limited powers, and was known as “anti-federalist”, who were later referred to the Democratic-Republican Party, since they supported a Republic form of federal government.

          After much debate and compromises, the new Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, when the 39 delegates present signed the document. Just before the signing by the delegates, the 81 year old patriarch of the group, Benjamin Franklin, rose to address the group, but being unable to complete his remarks gave the speech to James Wilson to read, declaring that he supported the new Constitution “with all its faults, if they are such” because he thought a new government was necessary for the young nation. Here is the rest of Franklin’s remarks, which I believe is important for every citizen to know:

          perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies . . . Thus I consent, Sir, to t“I doubt too whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all of their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to his Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.” 

          As Franklin left the convention hall, a lady asked him: “Well, Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.” And herein lies the problem we have faced almost before the ink dried on the signing of the Constitution. A Republic is a representative form of government, which governs within the “boundaries” of a Constitution, or as Justice Scalia believes, the “rule of law”.

          After the Constitution was adopted by the Convention, it was sent to the thirteen original states to be ratified. However, there was much discussion by the delegates that there should be a “Bill of Rights”, which was included in most constitutions of the states, and it appeared that without such the Constitution might not be ratified by two-thirds of the thirteen original states. In fact several states would only agree to ratify the Constitution unless there was an agreement by the advocates of the Constitution to guarantee that a Bill of Rights would be included, and during the first session of the Congress they added the first ten amendments, which made up the Bill of Rights.

          On the Constitution George Washington, in a letter to the Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1788, wrote: “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” This should be the “guide” of every elected official today. The Constitution does matter! Those who signed the Constitution were honorable and virtuous men, the Patriots of their time. In fact, the decade from 1776 to 1788 was really the “Greatest Generation” in American history. This is not, in any way, takes away the honor we have bestowed upon our men and women who sacrificed so much during WWII. They are the “Second Greatest Generation!”

          James Madison, who is given the credit as the writer of the Constitution, stated in Federalist Number 37, January 11, 1788: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

          Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote in the draft of the Kentucky Resolution, of 1798 wrote: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

          And George Washington in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796 stated: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

          Does the Constitution matter? The Founders seem to believe that it mattered.

          Right at the beginning of our new Republic forces within the Congress and the Executive Branch began passing legislation that could be construed as unconstitutional, or at the least very questionable. The debate was basically between the federalist (who controlled both the Congress and the presidency fro, 1788 to 1800) and those who followed Jefferson. For example, during the Washington presidency the Congress in 1794, adopted Hamilton’s financial proposals as Secretary of the Treasury, and imposed an excise tax on carriages and whiskey, which was a very unpopular tax. Then in 1795 there was the treaty with England brought home by Chief Justice John Jay that purported to resolve America’s debt with Great Britain, which the opposition (anti-federalist) took as a “sell-out” of American interest. In1798, John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act, which banned an American citizen from saying, writing or publishing anything that place the federal government in a “bad light”.

          The Judicial system was to some degree the “secret weapon” of the federalist during this period. These first judges were appointed by President’s Washington and Adams (both federalist), and approved by a federalist control Senate. In response to the Supreme Court rulings on the examples given in the preceding paragraph as well as others, Thomas Jefferson said: “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.”

          In other words, Jefferson not only questioned the Congress on certain legislation they passed, but the Judges who “interpret” the Constitution according to their beliefs or for political power. In his judgment, Jefferson believed that there was sufficient documentation and writings that fully explained the “intent” of the signers of the Constitution. Both federalist and anti-federalist were willing signers of the completed document that was sent to the states for ratification, which was ratified once the Bill of Rights were added as amendments. Therefore, both factions came together and agreed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They also agreed that in order to change or “update” any section, clause or statement within the Constitution that Article V of that document must be followed.

          What was taking place in the early period of this nation and throughout the years up to the present day is that our elected members of Congress and the Presidents through Executive Orders have usurped the “Original Intent” of our Founders. In addition, many outside forces with personal interest have successfully used the Judicial System, primarily the federal courts, to “misinterpret” and rule in direct violation of the “Rule of Law”, the Constitution.

          In closing, to answer the question “Does the Constitution Matter?” I believe that it does matter, but those who hold the POWER obviously do not believe as I do. It is fortunate that there is not a Sedition Act enacted by today’s Congress or my home within twenty-four hours of this article being published would be the nearest federal prison. To quote Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, Richmond, Virginia, June 5,1788: “Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? With the abandonment of your most scared rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings – give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! . . . Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

James B. Plair, Lt. Col. (USAR-Ret.)

68 College View Court

Brevard, NC 28712-4648

885-2906 – (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)