As a student of the U.S. Constitution and its history, I recently decided to hold discussion groups in my home every other week, on the subject of Constitutional theory and history. It has been enlightening to observe people who had never read the Constitution learn for the first time about concepts like "Sovereignty of the People" and "protection of rights through limitation of powers." Their reactions to laws of questionable constitutionality currently on the books have demonstrated to me that a Constitutionally schooled electorate is a no nonsense electorate. It's clear we would all be better off if we all understood the U.S. Constitution.
We need to bring friends and neighbors together, in person, to learn about the timeless and fundamental interests our Constitution codifies. Whether and how government should assist the people in this effort is an open matter, worthy of discussion. One thing that would help is READ THE BILL -- permitting the public to read bills, and screen provisions for Constitutionality, before bills are voted on. Any other devices that would help take the pain out of comparing laws Congress makes to the Supreme Laws Congress is supposed to obey, would be helpful.
In any case, it is necessary for Americans to buckle down and study the Constitution, together, in person. There is no substitute for face to face discussion, although online discussion has its place.
Comments (4)
Downsize D.C.org. has many initiatives such as Read the Bill Act, Single Subject Legislation Act, and one that restores our government to passing "legal laws!" I am not an employee or spokesperson, but simple a member who supports a lot of their common sense ideas, especially Constitutional legislation.
Bring John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act' to a Vote!
“ This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland”
“ We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez”
The specific, "enumerated" powers of Congress are spelled out in Article of I Section 8 the Constitution. There are twenty of them, as follows:
These are all the powers that the Congress has.
1. Borrow money
2. Regulate commerce among the states
3. Regulate naturalization
4. Regulate bankruptcies
5. Coin money
6. Fix weights and standards
7. Punish counterfeiters
8. Establish post offices
9. Establish post roads
10. Record patents
11. Protect copyrights
12. Create federal courts
13. Punish pirates
14. Declare war
15. Raise an army
16. Provide a navy
17. Call up the militia
18. Organize the militia
19. Makes laws for Washington, DC
20. Make rules for the Army and Navy
And that's it! "According to the 10th Amendment, all else is controlled by the states or the people."
Because these powers are delegated from the people, they are the only powers Congress has. But our Founding Fathers went further -- trying hard to make enumerated powers so obvious that even a politician couldn't miss the point. They passed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to shut the door to claims of additional power . . .
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
&
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.
And it is the tradition of Congress, for each member, upon the start of their terms of office, to take an oath, promising to protect and uphold the Constitution. Yet virtually every day that Congress is in session these same oath-takers become law-breakers -- passing laws and expending funds on items that are not Constitutionally permissible.
Over the years they've used the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and Supreme Court penumbras to give themselves powers the Constitution doesn't permit. IN FACT, MOST OF WHAT THEY DO THESE DAYS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If they had been abiding by their enumerated powers, the federal government would be much, much, much, much, much, much smaller, and far more decentralized than it is today.
Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) has re-introduced The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) - HR 450 EPA would require Congress to reference the specific clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution that grant them the power to enact laws and take other congressional actions.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
James Madison, Federalist No. 45
So what difference will it make if we require them to cite "chapter and verse" the section of the Constitution that gives them authority to pass a law, create or maintain a program, or impose a tax?
* Well, it might slow them down.
* It might mean that they reconsider a proposal instead of introducing it.
But we freely admit, this new law won't stop them.
However, we believe that this requirement will, over time, build the evidence necessary to make some real reforms. After all, how many different actions per day can they blame on the Commerce Clause before a judge rules or a reformer stands up and says, "This is a hole large enough to drive a fleet of trucks through; let's tighten it up!"
EPA might even, eventually, embarrass Congress. "Congressmen, openly refusing to live up to their oath of office, exhibit their deep contempt for our Constitution." EPA would expose these politicians because their actions would speak louder than their phony rhetoric.
I support Constitutional government as every law abiding citizen should, in my opinion.
Agree that Americans, oddly, no longer seem to know anything about the Constitution--shouldn't we be teaching it in schools? In fact, the whole idea of "Civics" as a subject needs to be revived. I'd like to see a mandate for public schools at all levels to teach the foundational national documents & principles.
Well put, jpmarquart (& janie). There seems to be an assumption, widespread in the land (& cultivated by politicos & legal beagles who want it that way), that the federal government can do whatever it wants, just with a little fudging around the edges, a little skewing of 'interpretation'. Which is, simply, not to live by the rule of law. Is to live by arbitrary law, and power. And the U.S. has far more than that cynical political relativity to give to the world.
We dishonor the founding fathers by that approach. Either we are a constitutional republic or we are not. If we are not, we are subject to be taken over by any tinpot dictator who manages to stalk the land. I for one will not have it. The founders of this country - men and women - deserve a better legacy than that. And, fortunately, they seem to be getting it, in the likes of the moves in a number of states to declare their loyalty to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, in particular the 10th Amendment; and the likes of the initiative to call current and ex-military to honor their oath to the Constitution - NOT the executive. Oathkeepers, they are called. And good on them.
And good on all citizens who still understand what they have been bequeathed, and do whatever they can to pass it on, to current and future generations; here and in the world, which sorely needs such examples of fealty to such a worthy cause.
stan, you and e.b. should read my idea, "Kill the Constitution," but don't do what some fools have done and just read the first line. You'll find I'm talking about ending the concept of a "living Constitution" open to re-interpretation at the whim of those in power. I show some of the programs that federal government is using to turn the States and local governments into conquered provinces. Some of that may be new to you. I even recommend that those States that "collaborate" with the federal government be kicked out of the union.
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049