ON THE WISDOM OF OUR TWO-CHAMBERED CONGRESS

 Posting 9

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

What marvelous simplicity, yet depth of thought we encounter as we begin a look at Article One of the United States Constitution.

It begins with the creation of the legislative branch of government, one of the three branches of government, the other two being the judicial and the executive. We note again the simplicity of the statement that “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” This is known as a bi-cameral body, meaning “two chambers:” the chambers referring to, in this case, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The question that arises periodically throughout history concerns the benefit of having two “houses” or “chambers.” Yet again, we see the wisdom of having these two houses: a House of Representatives, based on the population of the states and—it would seem—be a true representation of the people; and the Senate, with each state granted two Senators each and thus, representing the states.

It should be noted that the legislative powers are vested in the Congress. Indeed, throughout the history of this great land, much frustration and debate has arisen over laws that are seemingly handed down through the issuance of a Presidential Executive Order (legislation by the Executive Branch) or created by a ruling of the Supreme Court (legislation by the Judicial Branch). Even within recent history of this essay, a judicially created federal “right” was overturned, resulting in national anger, unrest, and division from those who failed to realize that the “right” in question was never passed through the Legislative Branch of Government.

Must it always be the case that legislation must always rest within the Congress? Could there not be cases in which it is prudent for the President or the Supreme Court to act in a legislative fashion? To that, I must defer debate. It is beyond the scope of these essays to explore whether there are exceptions to the practice of legislation within the Legislative Branch alone. Greater legal minds than that of this writer are weighing in on this and will, no doubt, continue to weigh in. Although I must say that I doubt a conclusion will be reached that will satisfy the points-of-view of every conceivable rabble whose opinion is roused.

It would seem to this writer that the safest course of action is to return to the original statement which prescribes the legislative powers be vested in the bi-cameral Congress of the United States of America.

by Aplo

PERIL, AS WE APPROACH THE ARTICLES

  Posting 8

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Having overviewed the elements within the Preamble to the United States Constitution, we now undertake the task of summarizing its Articles proper. Yet such an undertaking carries with it a certain degree of peril, peril that has existed since the genesis of our country, a peril that shall be addressed shortly.

The basics of the Constitution are relatively straightforward: seven articles dealing with the set up and role of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts, and the States, plus the process for amendments, general matters, and the approval of the document. This is followed by 27 Amendments, the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights.

To say that the United States Constitution is unique among world legal documents would be a bit of an understatement. Its identity of government defies much of common thought:

o   It is, at once, a federal government and a collaboration of state governments, simultaneously balancing the rights of these smaller units with the functioning of one national entity.

o   It is a democracy, but only in the general sense that the people can govern themselves. In reality, the United States of America is a representative Republic, in that these people can select and change the leaders, who then represent their interests.

o   It is a government of checks and balances. The three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are perpetually engaged in a dance of sorts in their roles. The Legislature passes a law, but the Executive (the President) can approve or reject it. If the President rejects the law, the Legislature can override that veto. The Judicial branch can rule on laws and actions taken by the President and Congress, but the President can appoint and the Congress must approve those justices.

So it would seem that each branch of government checks the power of the others, balancing said power so that no one branch can become too strong. It almost seems to this writer that the founding fathers may have wanted to head off the problems inherent in the expression, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In short, it seems like one of the fundamental strengths of the system of government laid out in the United States Constitution is its somewhat cynical view of human nature and its mechanism to keep these natural cravings for power under control.

To be certain, our founding fathers often engaged in spirited debate—some would say raucous arguments—over the shape of this government. This writer will leave it to historians and scholars to explain, clarify, vilify, or defend the assertions of these sessions. In the end of it all, the people—we the People—did ordain and establish this Constitution of he United States of America, a document that has stood for over 200 years.

But the peril did not end at our country’s founding. Indeed, the arguments have taken a more somber turn, as modern minds and modern movements would seek to dismiss the foundational principles of this document. This is not always the work of nefarious “villains,” lurking in the shadows determined to destroy our society. No, indeed; but the determination to diminish and deter our founding principles frequently comes from the popular and the admired, from the influencers whose opinions on any subject are considered expert, from even the very representatives of our government, who, knowing the grand Constitution, nevertheless would call for its dismantling. And there are those whose zeal to “save” this great country propel them to ignore the damage they do to the Constitution. The bad arguments, the over-simplified and under-applied rhetoric transcend political affiliation.

To blazes with peril! Let us continue to talk about the Constitution, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves of its splendidness in its totality or in its components.

by Aplo 

ABOUT SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY

 Posting 7

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Most rational people would agree that liberty is a good thing. Dictators, despots, and tyrants may routinely work against liberty, but in their own perverse way, they actually reserve to themselves what they deny to others, sort of a self-centered liberty which frees them to do what they want (such as restricting the liberty of others).

But in the preamble of the United States Constitution, one of the purposes of the document is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Let us lay aside any nefarious ideas of liberty—such as those propagated through social media—and agree that, at the very least, liberty might very well be found in those rights and freedoms found in our laws (particularly the Bill of Rights).

It must also be made clear that liberties, freedoms, and rights are only as good as their source. A tyrannical dictatorship will not secure many, if any, blessings of liberty, let alone those that would extend freedom in time. “Self” as the basis of liberty has its own weakness, in that it fosters personal ideas which may or may not work for the benefit of our Union, and fails to reflect anyone’s preferences but its own.

This writer humbly believes that the source of our rights and liberties is stated in the Declaration of Independence, in which we read that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (emphasis added). While our government may work on the application of these blessings of liberty, their Source is transcendent to humanity.

As “we the people” acknowledge this Source,  we are far better equipped to secure these blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.
 

by Aplo

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GENERAL WELFARE

Posting 6 

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

One of the purposes for the Constitution of the United States is to “promote the General Welfare.” Alas, some interpret this as meaning that the United States is to “provide general welfare” to all its people. This writer is justifiably uneasy about such a reading.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare.  At the time of its drafting, “welfare” was another word for “well-being.” And, of course, the government had a desire to promote the “well-being” of the nation by various means. The concern was for the health and safety of the citizens of this country.  In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “general welfare” was defined as “exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.”

As is inevitable, there are disagreements as to what exactly constitutes “general welfare” today. And while the experts would certainly quibble over the scope of general well-being, there is no question (as this writer as argued many times) that the federal government has some obligation—by virtue of the fact that we are one nation—to promote the “well-being” of its citizens.

But are we then to suppose that Congress can spend unlimited money on anything it deems necessary for the “general welfare?” Inasmuch as the Constitution empowers Congress to enact taxes for such, and inasmuch as such taxes are incurred by “we the people,” it would seem prudent that caution and restraint are in order, lest the Congress cast off all restraint and fund grand programs that some of its citizenry neither wants nor needs.

Indeed, given that certain powers are reserved to the states, many state constitutions have their own, more specific, definitions of what it means to promote the well-being of its citizens. By remembering this, we allow the individual states to tend to their unique needs and leave the federal government responsible for promoting the general welfare of the country.

by Aplo

ABOUT DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY AND COMMON DEFENSE

Posting 5

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

The next two purposes of the United States Constitution given to us in its Preamble are: “ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.” While many an essay links the latter with the next item—“promote the general welfare” (because of their connection in Article 1, Section 8)—for our purposes, we will consider domestic tranquility and common defense together.

“Domestic tranquility” literally means “peace at home,” which adequately describes what it is. The Constitution sets for the ability of the government to handle disputes that may arise between states. Since the old Articles of Confederation did not have a strong federal government structure, a scenario of a state government to rise up against another state was a real possibility. It did not even have to involve warfare—it could be disputes between states. These inter-state squabbles can be resolved by the intervention of the federal government.

Providing for the “common defense” has been understood as the ability of the government to engage in war or to resolve conflict with other countries through diplomacy. The principle of this is clear, with ongoing discussions as to how it is applied (as is true with many parts of the Constitution).

In short, ensuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense seem to embody the fact that, at times, we can and should act as one nation, seeking to solve problems internally and defend our nation from threats externally.

For those who would question this, it should be apparent that, as it has been stated elsewhere, that sometimes we are fifty states and sometimes we are one nation. There are a great many matters in which it is important for individual states to maintain their identity and government. But there are also areas in which it is important to act as the whole. In World War II, Germany did not go to war against Arizona. Rhode Island did not declare war on Japan. The armed forces of our country defend the whole country, not just parts of it.

And it must be realized and admitted that it is in our best interests as a nation to deal with internal rebellion. Fracturing the unity of the states (see Civil War) only weakens us as a country, breaking down our very systems and infrastructure and leaving us vulnerable to those external forces that would take advantage of our weaknesses.

Therefore, two of the stated purposes of the Constitution are to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, for the good of our states and for the good of our nation.

by Aplo