Rights, Powers in Constitution

It is astonishing that Jack Rakove, a professor at Stanford University, can write a column about how the Constitution should not be carelessly amended without noting that the Constitution has already been informally amended out of existence . . . amended out of existence, that is, if the purpose of the Constitution is to protect individuals’ rights (as confirmed by the 9th an 14th amendments) and to assign limited, enumerated powers to the federal government (as confirmed by the 10th Amendment).

If the Constitution is interpreted to give Congress the authority to pass laws about marijuana plants in someone’s yard, rats or a bog on farms or other land, “partial-birth” abortions, guns in schools, what someone can pay their gardener, boorish groping at work, etc., then plenary powers have been given, informally and extra-consti-tutionally to the federal government; and the 10th Amendment, which is the entire purpose of the Constitution as explained and understood by all of its authors, and especially at length by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in “The Federalist,” is a dead letter.

Worse than the abandonment of enumerated powers has been the reinterpretation of “civil rights.” Where originally individual rights were “liberties,” and “privileges and immunities” that were limitations on the power of government, “civil rights” are now interpreted as claims on the freedom, property, speech and even manners of others, which means that the power of government must be expanded to enforce such claims. The powers that the abandonment of the 10th Amendment puts into the hands of the federal government thus become an unlimited authority to control people’s property, persons, speech and even thoughts, all under the color of the rights protected by the 9th and 14th amendments. The “right” of people not to be offended by speech over the radio thus gives the federal government the bogus authority to pass laws “abridging the freedom of speech” (see the 1st Amendment) and to summarily fine someone like Howard Stern without trial, evidence, testimony or defense (see the 5th and 6th amendments).

When we are so confused about liberty and government ourselves, and send such a confusing message to the world, it is no wonder that the Poles and Russians are voting for Communists again. At least people know what they stood for.

KELLEY L. ROSS

Van Nuys