Constitutional limits were meant to restrain spending, encourage freedom

By Kevin Price

"Restoring the Constitution" is all the rave these days, as is "federalism" while people show concern over a national government that has become out of control and is spiraling our nation into a downfall. Recently people have woken up to the idea that when politicians discuss the Constitution, they are not talking about the 20 to 30 page document they swore to defend, but generations of case law that takes us further from the Founders original intent.

To a growing number of Americans, the current government system built on precedent, regulations from agencies, and executive orders looks more like tyranny than freedom, and more like lawlessness than order. There is a growing belief that we must restore order by bringing back the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the federal government. All of these things are important and the federal government's function in these areas was suppose to be strong, in order to protect the liberties of every American. Some of the things allowed included standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

So how did new medicines get regulated? How would certain industries be licensed? What about the many other things done today by the federal government, who would do them? This is where we get to the idea of "federalism." You see how it was designed to work clearly in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That word, reserved, means exclusivity. This was not a preferential view of public policy ("it would be best if the states and people took care of these things"), but a mandate (if it is not listed in the US Constitution, it is for the states and the people).

Over time most states had similar laws and regulations as one another. The vast majority of regulations that exist throughout state governments came into place from states watching the works of one another. With the many states, our country had a vibrant laboratory with new ideas being brought to the surface and each state essentially copied those laws that worked best. This system worked extremely well. As the rest of Western civilization largely stumbled weakly through the 19th Century with stagnant economies and excessive governments, the US was a vibrant powerhouse that focused on industry and innovation. Government did not get in the way, but largely cleared the way for progress.

The ideas behind this system are both simple and profound. The state governments had virtually unlimited powers, but limited amounts of money. Furthermore, they could not "print money" to fund its programs, because only the federal government had the power to do such. On the other hand, the federal government only had 17 powers and it had no reason to use inflation as a vehicle to fund its programs. This contributed to the value of the US dollar remaining constant from the era of the founding until the early part of the 20th century (during the New Deal we began to devalue our currency to pay for "extra Constitutional" or unconstitutional government programs).
Money was not the only item imposed on the states, but also good old fashion competition. If any one state became too excessive in its regulations, taxation, generosity in social spending, or in any other way, people could (and would) vote with their feet to go to places with more fiscally responsible environments. During the early 19th century, the Whig Party's "internal improvements" program (very similar to earmarks today) had a negative effect on state budgets around the country and led to massive migrations nationwide because of the high taxes that followed. By the early 19th century every state, except for Massachusetts, had prohibitions against such programs placed in their constitutions. Since people could easily leave states because of policies that were economically harmful, all states tended to demonstrate much more restraint in their spending and regulations, which led to greater prosperity for the nation as a whole.

The enumerated powers were not a suggested guideline, but the law of the land intended to disperse power, increase personal liberty, foster economic growth, and to keep us free. Study Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and study the rest of the document to enjoy the genius of the founders.

--
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness