I was having a discussion with someone about the perils of making the Bible go farther than its own words allow. I believe the example was about the "days" of Creation as used in Genesis. The Bible defines the term, "day", as being the separation of light from darkness. Some want to argue that this must be interpreted as a 24-hour period. But since the earth itself wasn't even created until the second day, this is by no means a required interpretation.



It's pointless to argue the matter, because the Bible itself is the source of the imprecision. The writer of Genesis decided not to explain himself any further than the words he used. To interpret the Bible's meaning properly, then, we need to constrain ourselves and go no further than the words allow.



Likewise, we need to restrain ourselves when using the Constitution, and go only so far as its words allow. Our Constitution is deeply founded on the concept of self government. In a self-government, all rights are inherent in the people themselves. Government cannot grant any rights, because the people already possess them.



Therefore, it's pointless to ask, for example, "where does the Constitution grant the right of corporations to speak?" The answer is, "nowhere", because the Constitution doesn't grant rights at all. The right of speech and assembly are natural rights that need no grant. In fact, you'll find just the opposite in the Constitution: a prohibition against government meddling.



In America, the government derives power from the consent of the governed. The government is the one being "granted" a right. The people are the owners, and the government, its employees.



The principles underlying the modern welfare state, however, are almost completely opposite to those of self government. In a modern, centralized state, the government holds the power, and distributes it to the people. The people work for the state, and in return, the state takes care of their daily needs.



My point isn't to argue that one grant of government is better than another, it is to simply point out how utterly, fundamentally different they are from each other.



This creates a real problem when a modern welfare state candidate such as Obama comes on the scene. He is forced to use a set of legislative tools that were created for an entirely different purpose than the one he wishes to put them to. He wants to guarantee universal coverage, which necessitates universal participation, but the Constitution says absolutely nothing about such a distribution of powers. The Constitution restricts itself to talking about the Federal government, and it alone.



Universal participation in healthcare is thus not so much un-Constitutional as it is extra-Constitutional. Obabma is asking the impossible of our system of government.



If what you are trying to make is a modern welfare state, then you need to write a new Constitution based on the proper concept of state vs. individual rights and liberties.