You say you want a Constitution

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was described this week by Washington Post staff writer Valerie Strauss -- by all indications with a straight face -- as "a constitutional expert."

Since the only roads which the Congress is authorized by the Constitution to fund are "post roads," presumably the good senator has arranged for his home state to get all those "highway demonstration projects" out of nothing more than his deep concern that the mail should always arrive on time.

If Sen. Byrd has been joining House colleague Ron Paul of Texas in voting against ongoing appropriations for the many Washington offices and bureaus whose authorization in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is tenuous at best, it's escaped our notice.

Nonetheless, Sen. Byrd has long lamented that the schools do a miserable job of acquainting America's youth with their founding document, so in 2004 the senator inserted near the end of a 660-page appropriations bill language that required all American schools that receive federal funds -- including universities -- to provide a program of education on the Constitution each year on or about Sept. 17.

That was yesterday.

So, when Junior and Sis reported home for dinner last night, and their parents asked what they'd learned in school, presumably Mom and Dad got an earful.

"First," we can imagine Junior reporting, "teacher had us spend 15 minutes searching the whole Constitution for any authorization for the federal government to get some leverage over what goes on in our local schools by sending tax dollars to the states through something called the 'federal Department of Education.' And you know what, Mom? There isn't any! So that business about withholding education funds if the schools don't go along with 'No Child Left Behind'? It's unconstitutional! They're not allowed to collect any 'federal education funds' in the first place!"

"No only that," we can imagine Sis chiming in, "Then Mrs. McGillicuddy-Ricardo had us search the Constitution for any authorization for the War on Drugs. And you know what?"

"What?" asks Papa, reaching for a glass of water as he starts to choke on the green-bean casserole.

"It's unconstitutional, too!" Junior blurts out excitedly. "They had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw booze in 1919, but they've never passed any amendment to let them prohibit pot or cocaine, so under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, Washington has no authority to enact any drug laws, and they certainly can't go in and overrule California law when it comes to medical marijuana."

"Federal energy policy?" asks Sis. "Forget it. Mrs. Ricardo says there's no authorization for it in Article I, Section 8. It's not even clear where Washington finds any delegated power to manage all those lands that the oil companies want to drill on, since the federal government never 'purchased them by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.' "

"Well, we're certainly glad you get to study the Constitution one day a year," smiles Mom, circling the table and pounding her mate quite forcefully on the back as Papa goes red in the face, struggling manfully to clear his windpipe of green beans and potato-chip topping.

"Oh, teacher said she didn't have nearly enough time to cover the whole thing in one day," Junior chirps, enthusiastically. "She says we get to start on the Bill of Rights tomorrow. Did you know that under the Second and 14th amendments, none of the laws that say we can't carry handguns to class are actually constitutional?"

We might wish such issues had been broached for long-overdue discussion in every classroom in America yesterday, as the public schools obeyed Sen. Byrd's mandate to discuss the founding document, perhaps presenting speakers from both sides of such current constitutional controversies.

Why do we suspect that didn't really happen, though?