Social Contract

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

John Locke referred to constitutions as being social contracts. James Madison, in his writings, referred to the US Constitution as being a social contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the US Constitution is in fact a social contract. The contract makers are the states, and we the people are party to that contract. The contract was written between the states to create a federal government to handle the issues the states may not be able to handle themselves, nor should when it comes to the proper functioning of a union. But, if the US Constitution is a social contract, then how could it be a living and breathing document.

In law if there is a case, case law can be referred to to help with the case. That is how the judges treat the US Constitution. However, in contract law precedent law is not necessarily a huge issue. Instead, the primary factor is whether or not the issue being discussed or disputed is in the contract, or is not in the contract. In other words, when it comes to contract law of the attitude is either it's in there or it is not. The Constitution as a contract works the same way. Implied law or interpretation based on a living breathing document does not apply, because when it comes to the authorities granted to the federal government by the social contract either they are in there, or they are not.

Unfortunately, the court system legislate from the bench and tries to interpret the Constitution when it is none of their business to do so. The final Arbiters of the US Constitution are the states. The problem is the federal court system, which is a part of the federal government, is deciding what authorities the federal government has. How is that limited government?

In the end, since the contract was written by the states, the Constitution is the final say when it comes to Federal authorities. Either, the federal authorities are expressly enumerated in the US Constitution, or they are not. So, let's go through a few.

Guns are not only not listed as an authority to the federal government, in the Second Amendment the Constitution tells the federal government that shall not infringe on gun rights. Therefore, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution can I find authority to the federal government to monkey with the Healthcare System. Therefore, all federal influence on health insurance and Health Care are unconstitutional. It is none of their business.

I can continue through issue-by-issue, but I think you are getting the idea. Either the federal government has the authority over an issue and it is listed in the Constitution, or it is not in the Constitution and they don't have that Authority. It is our job as Citizens to work with our States to get this straightened out. We need to, as Citizens, understand the original intent of the United States Constitution, and then demand our State legislators two wield State sovereign powers against the federal government as there are constitutionally empowered to. The federal government was not created by the States through the U.S. Constitution to rule over the States, the federal government was created to serve the States, and to serve the People. This idea that our States, Congress, or citizens are afraid of the federal government tells us that we are not following the Constitution, and that our federal government is a tyranny.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary