The campaign season is on!
That means over the next few weeks, candidates for federal office will spend millions of dollars trying to convince you that their particular slate of programs will “turn the country around.” They’ll propose job creation programs, health care programs and programs to help balding men grow hair.
And boy, will we argue. We’ll argue about the cost of the proposed programs. We’ll argue about the feasibility of the proposed programs. We’ll argue about the fairness of the proposed programs.
But seldom will you ever hear anybody stop and ask, “Hey, does the federal government actually have the constitutional authority to implement this?”
Believe it or not, that used to matter.
In fact, it used to stand as the most important question. Because no matter how good the idea is, and no matter how great the program might turn out to be, if the federal government lacks the power to implement it, it should never see the light of day.
In his last act as president, James Madison vetoed a bill that funded programs he favored. In fact, they were programs he lobbied for. The legislation was a public works bill that would have provided money for federal road and canal construction. Even though Madison believed strongly that the federal government should involve itself in improving the transportation system, he vetoed the bill, arguing that the people must first amend the Constitution to grant the federal government the power to implement such programs.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
How far we have fallen. Today we simply push forward with a program because we decide “that’s a good idea.” And when somebody actually stands up and challenges the constitutionality of an action, they get mocked by the likes of Nancy Pelosi.
““Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Yes, Nancy, I am.
We have allowed pragmatism overwhelm our most basic constitutional principles. We’ve traded America’s soul for a bunch of over-hyped, overpriced, feckless federal programs.
When we hear these politicians promising us the world, it’s time to start asking them the most important question: is your program constitutional?
If it’s not – reject it.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)
- Proposed Cambridge Privacy Ordinance Would Take First Step Toward Limiting Surveillance State - December 8, 2016
- Missouri Bill Would Legalize Hemp Farming, Set Foundation to Nullify Federal Ban in Practice - December 8, 2016
- Missouri Bill Would Limit ALPR Data, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program - December 7, 2016