In the design of a government it is a mistake to found the body of law that governs the government on a list of what the government may not do, as we, the people of the United States should have been learning over the past 250 years. Our founding fathers, and by this I mean most especially Thomas Jefferson, understood this very well. Anyone who actually reads the body of constitution cannot help but be struck by its consistent logical structure in this regard. Very specific powers are granted to very specific branches of government. It is understood by sheer force of logic that any power that is not granted is expressly forbidden.

It is the greatest misfortune that this perfectly consistent logic was destroyed immediately in their ignorance and paranoia, by men of lesser intelligence and vision, by the adoption of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments, becoming part of the constitution itself, destroy the logical integrity of the constitution by now, granting specific rights to the governed, which were already implicit in the unamended consitution, thus creating the idea and the logical justification for the legal premise that it is the government that grants rights! Furthermore, the explicitness of the phrase "Congress shall make no law ....", like many other things that sound good superficially, leaves that very explicitness open to contradiction and cicumvention: perhaps we can't make that law, but we can make this law because the constitution doesn't say we can't.

The founding of this country is predicated on the proposition that all power and authority granted to the government is granted by the people in whom the power to grant resides. The converse proposition is in absolute contradiction to the proposition.

This essential destruction of the logical integrity of the constitution opens up the possibility (which has indeed manifested itself) that the very idea of constitutionality is in question and that the congress may, in fact, pass any law it chooses and find some justification in doing so. The economic crises that we approach now so closely, is a direct consequence of the destruction of constitutional logic: the federal government has interfered with and meddled in affairs that would otherwise have been logically and legally forbidden.

Our Supreme Court justices can do nothing more than engage in ultimately idle sophistry, issue edicts that successively overturn each other and are otherwise powerless to extricate the court from the logical nightmare in which they live. The court has become a source more of personal opinion than of legal logic which is why it is so important for presidents to appoint justices who are believed to be in accord with their own agenda or policies. The last refuge of the court in dealing with the now multiplied contradictions is the principle of intent, which is only slightly better than personal opinion. Even that principle is not firm since there is no directive in the Constitution that specifies using intent as a basic principle for judicial opinions.

It is not for nothing that our great socialist president Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted his now famous and failed court packing manouver to raise the number of justices from 9 to 13. The stacking of the court, however, is a powerful one to change the law of the land only because of the muddle created by the existence of the Bill of Rights, and one that has been recognized and used whenever possible by all succeeding presidents.

The interpretations of "Congress shall make no law ....", that take as axiomatic that "it wasn't really intended to mean NO law", are already with us in the form of laws that deny rights in indirect ways.

We now approach yet another consitutional disease, which will, of course, be swallowed whole: that the congress, our wimpy "national asylum for the mentally enfeebled - M. Twain" will be subverted by the excutive branch so that law will be created by "Presidential Order". The govenors of States have already caught on to this and are now creating law, circumventing their own legislatures by "Orders". The people of the State of California have already been cicumventing their legislature through referenda. All this may be good or it may be bad, but it is a decidedly clear indication of the breakdown of our constitutional government. When will a presidential order suspend the constitution and declare what would be tantamount to martial law? The President is, after all, commander and chief of our armed forces. Again, there is logical line from this breakdown, and the now unavoidable breakdown of the economic house of cards that will propagate throughout the world, through to the mistake that we call the Bill of Rights.

Top of Page

Home Page

Email me, Bill Hammel at

The URL for this document is:
Created: July 13, 1998
Last Updated: January 28, 1999