top of page

Are We Still A Constitutional Republic?

In contemplating the contemporary state of our government and its adherence to the Constitution, it is imperative to consider the foundational principles upon which the United States was founded. As a constitutional originalist, I firmly uphold the necessity of a limited federal government that adheres strictly to the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system in which the federal government would have clear boundaries to prevent overreach. But the question arises: if the federal government isn't limited to the Constitution anymore, are we still a constitutional republic?

The answer to this question is complex and calls for a meticulous examination of our present reality. At the heart of the matter is the understanding of a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is a form of government in which elected representatives are bound by a supreme law, the Constitution, and where the power of the government is derived from the people. It is characterized by strict adherence to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

However, in recent years, there has been growing concern among constitutional originalists that the federal government has expanded beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution. This expansion is evident in various forms, including the growth of executive orders, increased federal regulations, and the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, among other things. These actions have often been justified under the banner of addressing societal issues or crises.

In addressing this concern, it is essential to refer to the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is particularly relevant in this context. It states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This amendment underscores the principle that any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution should remain with the states or the people.

The erosion of this principle has led to an expansion of federal power far beyond what the framers intended. James Madison, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, warned about such interpretations of the General Welfare Clause, stating,

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

This quote from Madison highlights the framers' intent that the General Welfare Clause should not be construed as a blank check for expansive federal authority, which is exactly what the federal government has been doing for decades.

In evaluating the form of government that has emerged due to this expansion, it is clear that the strict limitations of a constitutional republic are being ignored. The proliferation of federal agencies, which often enact regulations with the force of law, has eroded the balance of power between the branches of government. The extensive use of executive orders, while constitutionally permissible in certain situations, has raised concerns about the concentration of power in the executive branch.

The erosion of the constitutional republic's foundations has led to the United States evolving into a more centralized form of government, akin to a federal system, where power resides primarily at the national level. This transformation poses a challenge to the principles of federalism, which were integral to the Founding Fathers' vision of a limited federal government. Federalism, with its dual sovereignty between the federal government and the states, has been a cornerstone of the American system.

To answer the question posed, if the federal government is no longer limited to the Constitution, we are drifting away from the pure form of a constitutional republic that the framers envisioned. Instead, we seem to be moving closer to a more centralized, federal system. This transformation has implications for the distribution of power, the protection of individual liberties, and the ability of citizens to hold their government accountable.

In conclusion, the United States is at a critical juncture in its history, where the principles of limited government and adherence to the Constitution are being stretched beyond recognition. As a constitutional originalist, I maintain that a return to the core principles of a constitutional republic, with a federal government strictly limited to its enumerated powers, is essential to preserve the vision of the Founding Fathers. The ongoing debate about the role and scope of the federal government will shape the future of our nation and determine the form of government we ultimately embrace. It is a conversation that must be informed by the wisdom of the Constitution, the words of the framers, and the understanding that the true strength of our nation lies in its commitment to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

3 views1 comment
bottom of page