Applying the Constitution today requires thought, not rhetoric

I refer to these types of commentaries as “lazy man’s columns.”

Meaning, I ran out of time, too much stuff on my plate, and was a little late in addressing the subject so I used a bit of cut and paste to help me attain my word requirements.

But it’s a topic I’ve always wished to discuss, so why not start it this way?

Yesterday, Wednesday, Sept. 17, was the 225th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Usually the day goes fairly unnoticed, with the exception of various groups dedicated to all things American, such as the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Not to pick on the DAR. It’s an excellent organization and does noble work in attempting to remind Americans of our heritage and our duty to democracy.

I’ve been thinking about the Constitution a lot lately. I’ve read books that deal with parts of it, such as Archibald Cox’s “The Court and the Constitution,” which is about as dry a book as you’ll ever read about constitutional issues facing the Supreme Court, but extremely informative and descriptive.

I read a letter to the editor the other day noting Wednesday’s anniversary, and calling on citizens to not support an effort to call a new constitutional convention in order to consider an amendment requiring a balanced budget. The letter referenced something called “The Freedom Index,” which is a project of an organization called “The New American.”

On their website, they define The Freedom Index as “A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution (that) rates congressmen (sic) based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.

The index attaches percentages to each Congress member based on key votes between 1999 and 2014.

These are all good principles, but sometimes I wonder if people espousing their adherence have ever actually read and thought about the document, specifically Article I, Section 8 “Powers Granted to Congress.” Personally, I think people who accuse Congress, or the President of not following the Constitution do so only when the legislation or action runs counter to their agenda, not so much that it violates a section of the document.

There are 429 words in this section that define the Congresses’ powers, beginning with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Congress can also borrow money on credit of the United States, regulate foreign and domestic commerce we’re involved in, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, establish rules of naturalization, etc., etc., etc.

The section ends with this paragraph: “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.” Some of those “other Powers” came via the Bill of Rights.

In short, there’s a lot Congress can do, and it’s more than what many people would ascribe to them. Those people also include members of Congress.

I would invite all of you to read the Constitution and think about it, not just in the light of its historical context, but also in the context of today’s affairs, foreign and domestic.

Because we live in a vastly more complicated world than the one faced by our founders on Sept. 17, 1789.

John McCallum can be reached at [email protected].