Editor, Vermont Commons:

In [the Fall 2009 issue of Vermont Commons] Harold Thomas and Kirkpatrick Sale reported on the efforts of several states to nullify federal mandates by legal challenges to the broad grant of powers that the federal government pretends to perceive in the ambiguous “general Welfare” and “Commerce “ clauses of the U.S. Constitution (Article I. Section 8)
   
Constitutional scholars have long argued, long and hard, whether Social Security, aid to education and No Child Left Behind, aid to housing,  research grants, labor standards, federal highways, farms subsidies, business loan guarantees, the space program, airport subsidies, the nuclear energy program, and now the economic stimulus package and national healthcare, etc., are constitutional under these clauses.
   
Although the legal arguments will continue forever, no firm conclusion can be reached because – pardon my French – the U.S. Constitution is a pile of crap. When adopted in 1787, it was a stunning document, far ahead of its times, drafted by what were then the most enlightened political minds. But it did not anticipate the complicated issues we face today, and it is now a quaint, outdated museum piece, kept on life support by frequent, imaginative reinterpretations,. If you want to find out whether No Child Left Behind or the nuclear energy program are constitutional, you might as well read tea leaves.
   
For an example of a modern constitution, dealing with current issues, take a lot at the Constitution of the Swiss Federation. With 197 Articles (the U.S. Constitution has only seven) expressed in short and precise sentences, this document has all the charm of a railroad timetable, but it is encyclopedic and unambiguous. Social Security and health care? Guaranteed (Art. 41). Control of schools and their curriculum? Responsibility of cantons (Art.62).   National highways? Railroads, air travel, space travel? Renewable energy? Nuclear energy? Electric power grid? Responsibility of Feds (Arts. 83, 87, 89, 90, 91). Human cloning? Federal deficits? Forbidden (Arts. 119, 126). Federal tax rate? Maximum rate of 11.5 percent, to be collected by cantons and then forwarded to Feds, minus a collection fee of 17 percent (Art. 128). Etc., etc.
   
Will we ever reform our Constitution in such a rational and up-to-date manner?
   
As likely as water running uphill. The old fogies on our Supreme Court love to fiddle with constitutional arguments, and the sleazy members of our Congress love the ambiguities in our outdated, creaky Constitution, which they can exploit to their own advantage. And let’s not forget the hordes of shyster lawyers who make their fame and fortune arguing the cases.

Hans C. Ohanian
Charlotte, Vermont