Not long ago, I happened to reread an old blog post of mine that deals with the issue of the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. After I finished reading my "additional thoughts" at the end, another thought occurred to me. When President Washington was considering the bill, passed by Congress, that would enact a national bank, he wanted to investigate whether it was supported by the Constitution before he signed it into law. This seems like a reasonable approach to me, but unfortunately, today's lawmakers don't seem to have much regard for the Constitution.

In a recent column, Walter Williams describes the Enumerated Powers Act, which is introduced every year by Rep. Shadegg (R, Az). If enacted, the bill would "require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions." (To read the text of the bill, click here and enter "enumerated powers act" in the search field. The bill is short, and not at all difficult to understand.) Naturally, the bill won't go anywhere, because the members of Congress (with exceptions, among them the sponsors of this bill) don't want to be bound by Constitutional authority, and certainly don't want to encourage awareness of their violations of that authority.

As it happens, I wrote to Johnny Isakson, who was my representative in the House in 2001. (Mr. Isakson is in the Senate now, more's the pity.) I asked him to support the bill. His response was disappointing. I will let Mr. Isakson speak for himself:

I do not support this legislation, since the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, set up our government as three branches, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The powers of the Congress are granted by the Constitution, and the insurance policy against passage of any unconstitutional legislation is the review power of the Supreme Court. I do not believe that it is necessary to add additional language to legislation when this system is in place.

I sent a response to Mr. Isakson, in which I pointed out that the review power of the Supreme Court (which, by the way, is not found anywhere in the Constitution itself, but was usurped by the Court in its ruling on Marbury vs. Madison) is no proof at all against passage of legislation, as Mr. Isakson stated. The Court can only rule on bills after they have passed, and then only when they are involved in a judicial proceeding that progresses through the appeals process. As a legislative police force, the Supreme Court is poor at best. I also noted that Mr. Isakson's attitude is akin to that of a criminal, who believes he doesn't need to obey the law because we have police who enforce it. I admonished Rep. Isakson for his immoral position and encouraged him to change his position regarding the Enumerated Powers Act, as well as the Constitutionality of all the bills he votes on.

Of course, Mr. Isakson did acknowledge, at least implicitly, the authority of the Constitution. Unfortunately, President Bush doesn't seem inclined to do that. In 2005, President Bush was discussing the Patriot Act, and one of his aides mentioned that there were potential Constitutional issues with the bill. As documented in one of Chuck Baldwin's columns, President Bush reportedly responded to aide by saying, "It's just a g-d- piece of paper!" (He was referring to the Constitution, not the Patriot Act.) Of course, President Bush's statement (if he did, in fact, say that) is consistent with his apparent attitude toward the Constitution.

Dr. Williams and Pastor Baldwin have it right. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, granting the powers to each of the three branches of government. Those who serve in the government are subject to its restrictions, whether they acknowledge this or not. For a system of self-government to succeed, the members of government must first govern themselves, and that includes submitting to the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. Attitudes as demonstrated by President Bush and Mr. Isakson are symptomatic of a tyrannical government gone wild.