Lay claim to Constitution - or lose it?

One of the most worrisome social trends today is that many Americans no longer claim ownership of the Constitution.

Every time I write about some constitutional issue, I inevitably hear from some smug liberal scoffing at how "Frank the Constitutional Scholar" knows more than the judges and congressmen who reign in Washington. Apparently we are supposed to be comfortable with the idea of letting President Obama, Harry Reid and the judges they appoint and confirm tell us what the Constitution means.

This is a scary thought. First, it is the judges, congressmen and presidents in Washington which the Constitution is supposed to protect us from. It codifies the LIMITS of their power over "we the people." Second, why should anyone in America be made to feel ashamed for holding up the Constitution as their shield of liberty? Should it not be as familiar to us, and as vital, as the air we breathe?

If "we the people" surrender interpretation of the Constitution to those in power, then we have abrogated our responsibility as sovereign citizens. Each and every person in this country should know and understand the Constitution. Otherwise our country is the moral equivalent of the church in the Middle Ages when only the priests knew what was in the Bible, kept hidden in the mysterious code language of Latin, and doled out to the flock in dribs and drabs as the priesthood deemed appropriate.

The arrival of the printing press and the ensuing Reformation and Enlightenment gave back to the people the ability to make their own decisions about religion. It is time that "we the people" take back the Constitution as well. Indeed, the fact that people in this country don't understand their responsibilities as the guardians of the Constitution is a damning indictment of our educational system. Can we really be so naive that we are willing to accept the pronouncement from "on high" about what the ruling law of the land proclaims instead of studying it for ourselves and making our own decisions?

As much as anything, the Tea Party Movement is a reaction to just that haughtiness of Washington, D.C. The ruling elites have used the Constitution as their equivalent of a get-rich scheme for too many years, and the people are sick of it. Now, finally, we are seeing signs that "we the people" will not go down without a fight.

And a terrific fight it promises to be. We could even be in the midst of the country's most serious constitutional crisis since the 1800s.

As many as 33 states are in some stage of suing the federal government over the federal health-care "reform" law, which adds billions of dollars in burdens to state treasuries and also forces citizens to buy health insurance, whether they want it or not.

On another front, Arizona is the first of what will probably be several states to pass statutes to essentially demand that the federal government fulfill its duty to uphold the laws on immigration.

And here at home, Montana was the first state to pass the Firearms Freedom Act, which argues that if a gun does not cross the state line, then the federal government has no regulatory power over it.

And in both the Arizona and Montana cases, the federal government is contemplating lawsuits against the states for claiming the rights guaranteed to them under the 10th Amendment.

Yep, we have a constitutional crisis all right. Either that or we don't really have a Constitution anymore anyway. Because despite what some people believe, the federal government does not have unlimited powers; it only has the powers granted to it by the states when they signed the Constitution.

Thus, the federal government DOES have a delegated power to regulate "interstate commerce," but they DO NOT have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce - trade that takes place entirely within the borders of a state. That's why "What's MADE in Montana and STAYS in Montana" is none of the federal government's business - including guns. Of course, the court can just "deem" that intrastate commerce IS interstate commerce, but that would only worsen the constitutional crisis, not end it.

Nonetheless, that's just the kind of ruling we can expect from the Supreme Court - because it's what we have gotten in the past. And it makes clear why the further we get from the plain written words of the U.S. Constitution, the more trouble we've got. If judges can "deem" and "discover" new powers for the federal government, then we might as well rip up the Constitution.

Indeed, some politicians seem to find the Constitution a bit inconvenient, whether it was George W. Bush with the Patriot Act or Barack Obama with the Health-Insurance Mandate. There is an oft-repeated story that President Bush dismissed the Constitution as a troublesome "piece of paper." That may be apocryphal, but there is ample evidence that his successor did call the Constitution "an imperfect document and ... a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture."

Perhaps that view of the Constitution is why President Obama once famously pledged that if elected that he would be "fundamentally transforming" the United States of America.

After all, it would not be possible to "fundamentally" transform America without altering or doing away with the Constitution. "Fundamental" change means change which affects the "foundation," and the foundation of our country is the Constitution given to us by our FOUNDING Fathers. There is really no other interpretation possible.

The fact that the states and the people of the United States are resisting this "transformation" is not just a bit of political theater; it is rather a manifestation of the core beliefs that stream through our body politic. The Tea Party movement is aptly named because it is steeped in the foundational principles of this nation.

Consider, for instance, these words from the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence... will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

This paragraph is doubly important. First, it assures us that "governments long established" should not be lightly changed. Yet how else can we describe the presumptuousness of a president who deigns to "fundamentally transform" the republic that for two centuries has been the standard bearer of freedom for the entire human race?

Secondly, it assures us that "usurpation" - the wrongful seizure or exercise of power - is grounds for the people to rise up and "provide new guards for their future security." Note that it is not just the "right" of the people to throw off such an abusive government, "it is their duty."

Each of us can decide for ourselves whether we think such abuses are under way now, but if "usurpation" means bypassing the established order, then we should at least be worried when we hear that a president's avowed goal is to "fundamentally transform" the country.

There is indeed another eerie echo in the Declaration of Independence which reverbrates mightily in response to that foul chord. It comes in the list of excesses of King George III which the colonists submitted to the world as evidence of tyranny, and notes that the king had given "his assent to ... acts of pretended legislation" that had the effect of "taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments" [emphasis added].

Whether a president or king should not matter. Neither has the authority to either "alter fundamentally" or "fundamentally transform" the nation we live in. Anyone who reads the Constitution and the Declaration already knows that. Maybe that's why some people don't want us to read them, or to understand them.