To study this subject, an annotated copy of the Constitution is essential. After each article, section, or clause, there is an explanation of that section and those cases and decisions that have had an effect on that section and its everyday meaning.

These annotations are, sometimes, extensive and in some cases ridiculously so. Example: After quoting just the first sentence from Article One, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Satates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representitives," there is over 80 pages dealing with decisions by federal courts, classes of decisions, the effects of these decisions, challenges, and the meaning for everyday citizens. EIGHTY PAGES for one sentence. This should have been an indication of things to come. The annotoations for Article One required 374 pages.

It is evident that no single blog post will be sufficient, nor would anything short of something similar to the extensive annotations. It is with this in mind that I decided to give a summary of how the Constitution has been rendered meaningless.

Much of what made the Constitution unique and our government as eduring as it has been is the seperation of powers of the three branches of government. The idea behind this seperation was simple: No one branch would have total or near total authority. The checks and balances built into the government were supposed to prevent the creation, enforcement, and ejudication of the law from being done by one branch, thus preventing conflicts of interest and the creation, essentially, of a dictatorial single branch.

The annotations for Article One begin with this sentence, "The Constitution nowhere contains a express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances."

It goes on citing a series of articles by James Madison where he proclaimed that, "the doctrine (of seperation of powers) did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or control over, the acts of each other," but that, "liberty was endangered where the whole power of one is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another." Neither sharply drawn demarcations of boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient. Instead, the security against concentration of powers "consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others." Ambition was to counteract ambition.

It was this slight chink in the armor of seperation of powers that has given the federal courts the excuse to render decisions that have, in their entirety, given each branch the power of the other branches where and whenever the court or that branch decides it must weild that power. The doctrine of non-delegation of powers, judicial enforcement of seperation of powers, the expressed limitation on the powers of Congress, State’s Rights, and all other sections of the Constitution have been made either less powerful than intended or outright meaningless by this one corruption of the seperation of powers.

Two of the many court decisions endorsing this corrupted view of seperation of powers are:

McCullough v Maryland 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 407

17 U.S. at 411

17 U.s. at 421

Justice Marshall declared "the power declared by the ‘necessary and proper’ clause embraces all legislative means unless forbidden by the letter and spirit of the Constitution." This refers to the Constitution stating that Congress has the power to make any law "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed duties. This decision states that any means necessary to pass a law is covered by that "necessary and proper" statement.

American Insurance v Canter 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)

26 U.S. at 542

26 U.S. at 543

The same Justice Marshall wrote that, "the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and treaties; consequently that government possesses the power to acquire territory and from it, the inevitable consequence of the right to govern it." This decision had the effect of granting to the federal government a power it had not been granted by the Constitution, opening the door for more "resultant and inherent powers" to become law.

To summarize, the courts in these decisions have repeatedly ascribed to the federal government powers that do not accord with the doctrines of seperation of powers, expressed limits on Congress, and State’s Rights as are plainly contained within the Constitution.

It seems to me that the Judicial branch, and subsequently the Executive and Legislative branches, lost no time in seeking to gain for itself, and the federal government as a whole, absolute power and sovereignty over the states and the people at every opportunity, going as far as to include in their reasoning corrupted mis-interpretations of the Constitution’s content meant to prohibit just such a gain and growth in the power of the federal government.

Imagine, that if just this single sentence from the Constitution has been so dis-emboweled, what lies in store for the balance of the limits on federal power included in the Constitution. It then becomes no mystery as to how and why our rights, as per the Constitution, seem to be of no accord to Congress, the President, or the courts.

Glenn Flowers