Has anyone in Washington read the Constitution lately?

Throughout history, of the many great political documents that were crafted, the Constitution of the United States must rank second to none. Composed by arguably the best minds of any era, the Constitution has been the basis and structure on which this country has survived, grown and prospered for more than two and a quarter centuries. Yet, has anyone in Washington read or re-read that document recently? One wonders.

It is interesting, for example, that nowhere in the Constitution is any mention made of political parties and even of Republicans or Democrats. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of factions that might emerge to subvert the Constitution. Yet, almost immediately after ratification in 1789, the exact opposite occurred. The consequences today have led to destructive politicization on the part of both parties.

It is likewise interesting that Article I of the Constitution deals with the Legislative and not the Executive or the presidency, indicating which branch the drafters meant to be primus inter pares in government. Article I established a Senate and a House of Representatives as the first order of business and then reversed the precedence by defining the role of the House before the Senate. What is salutary appears a few lines later.

The House of Representatives "shall choose a Speaker." Note, the Constitution states that the House, not Republicans, Democrats nor a majority of the majority shall pick the Speaker. The meaning was clear. The Speaker was meant to represent the entire body, not simply a majority. With the resignation of Speaker John Boehner and the election of his replacement later this month, has any member of the House re-read this part of the Constitution?

The authorities of Congress specified in Article I, Section 8, subparagraph 11 include "The power to declare War..." and subparagraph 14 "To make the rules for the government and Regulation of the land and naval forces...." How do both explicit powers square with the reality that the U.S. is fighting an undeclared war with the Islamic State which President Barack Obama has vowed "to degrade and destroy" based on a fourteen year old resolution authorizing the use of force and that in deciding the role of women in combat, the Pentagon is making the rules for government and regulation of the armed forces, not Congress?

Can you imagine past lions of both houses of Congress, including former chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relation Committees, tolerating this clear violation of the Constitution and abdication of their responsibilities? Perhaps the answer is yes. But still it would be refreshing to think otherwise.

As long as the issues of gays, God, gestation periods and guns dominate politics, addressing each with common sense and without emotion will be difficult. Regarding guns, the Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To repeat, the Second amendment begins with "A well regulated militia..."

What were the drafters thinking? From the Federalist and other papers, the meaning was crystal clear. States would maintain militias in part to check the power of the Federal government and in larger part to provide for their security since the Constitution called for "providing a navy and raising an army." For much of its early history as frontier states battled Indians and the nation would later expand West, until the Civil War, the standing army was small. Militias were necessary for protection and defense of the citizenry.

And imagine if Wyatt Earp and other lawmen of the times were alive today demanding that citizens check their guns before entering town. The lawsuits and outrage would swamp courts and the media. How times have changed.

Finally, if one reads the Seventh Amendment, all cases involving more than $20 could be heard by a jury. Few people know that -- even if the relevancy of this amendment is well past its sell-by date. The same might be said of the qualification of being a "natural born citizen of the United States" as prerequisite to eligibility for the presidency. Natural born was interpreted as being born in the United States.

Amending the Constitution is purposely a long and painstaking process. But reading and abiding by it are not. One wonders what the results would be if members of Congress re-read and acted upon what the Constitution says. Sadly, the answer would be probably not much different. That partially explains why government is failing the people so badly. ___________________________________________________________ Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business; and Senior Advisor at both Washington D.C.'s Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security. His latest book is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace.