Constitution as Implied versus Constitution as Written

Constitution as Implied versus Constitution as Written

. .

Reason Two

Why Today's Balanced Budget Discussions Are Ridiculous

..

A response to a Cal Thomas holiday column in which I found no holiday spirit.

By Bob Komives, December 24,  2010

The holiday season, for many, is a time when we treat our neighbors of different political persuasion as, well, neighbors. It is nice to foster peace for a few days so that in the new year we can come out fighting without killing each other. Here it is December 24, 2010; as hard as I try, in my today's newspaper I can't ignore a column by Cal Thomas . He writes not a single phrase in the holiday spirit. Rather, he lambastes his version of "liberal Democrats" and his version of "'moderate' GOP senators" who would compromise with the liberals. In the classic of first definitions, it appears he does not like that these two groups managed a rare occasion to have intercourse. In my ample spirit of holiday charity I smiled and momentarily ignored Thomas’s lack of same. After all, his opinion was already a few days old by the time my newspaper chose to publish it. I could imagine that by the time I read this, he was indeed feeling more charitable toward those who refuse to listen to him. Unfortunately, I read on. He quotes Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma as saying, 

"We are water-boarding the next generation with debt." 

Gruesome image, but perhaps Coburn too spoke before getting into the holiday spirit. Perhaps he had already asked for and received holiday forgiveness from his open-hearted constituents.

.

Then I came to the reason why I write. Further on, Cal Thomas chooses to imply that his hatred of federal debt is in sacred agreement with the Constitution:

"Early next month, 108 new members of Congress will take the oath of office and swear to uphold the Constitution. The question is: which Constitution? Will it be the one written by the Founders, which has sustained us for two centuries? Or, will it be the one that is being ripped to shreds by activist courts and out-of-control legislators who have concluded that grand document means only what they and the judges decide it means? In families that overspend and are weighed down with debt, there often comes a ‘we can’t go on like this’ epiphany followed by a decision to reduce spending and be content with less. Not so with our government." 

Notice, while he implies that debt and unbalanced budgets defy the Constitution, he does not directly say so. Perhaps he assumes that the ignorant reader will extract that meaning without his having to lie. In a later posting, I will take up the absurdity of comparing national budgets with family budgets, but for now I only wish to point out why Cal Thomas knows he had to use patriotic innuendo in order to avoid a lie. He knows that the Constitution repeatedly supports and even mandates federal debt. 

.

This should be obvious by the mere fact that over the years die-hard bean counters have called for a constitutional amendment to require federal budget balancing. We need not amend the constitution unless it does not now say what we want it to say.

.

What does it say?

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes ..., to pay the Debts ...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." 

OK, Founders of our nation made it clear that Congress can pay debt, because, presumably there was and would continue to be debt. They also tell us there will be a need to borrow and a need for money.

.

Article VI: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." 

Founders realized that the Confederation had gotten into problems by not having enough fiscal power. To decline to pay this debt would essentially be a declaration of national bankruptcy. Our Founders were not debt shy. Not long after getting the nation going with its new constitution, as if to underline the point for us, Hamilton and Jefferson agreed to assume the debt of the several states as well.

Less anybody doubt our need for national debt and a willingness to eventually pay it, Congress found it necessary to make clear that it would stand behind the huge debt left from fighting the Civil War--at least the debt accrued by the winners.

Amendment XIV: "The validity of public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection of rebellion, shall not be questioned." 

Oops, word to us from those who governed us in the late 19th century would seem to be: do not question our obligations to cover Social Security and indebtedness to veterans. Do not talk of bankruptcy; bankruptcy is not an option.

.

Thus, let us find holiday charity toward Cal Thomas when he says he would not have us perpetuate "the cycle of debt and spending that contributed to America’s current economic difficulties." Fair enough, Cal, I’m all for learning from and avoiding mistakes. However, please do listen to the  Founders, as well as to the daughters, sons and grandchildren who took their place. Do perpetuate that cycle of debt and spending that contributes to our great nation--the extensive debt and wise spending anticipated in the Constitution. Which Constitution? The one written by the Founders, which has sustained us for two centuries?