Carlsbad
Lesson 03
Legislative Authorities
Making Law, and Enumerated
Powers
Making
Law
As covered when we studied Article I, Section 1, all
legislative powers belong to the Legislative Branch. According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2,
all bills must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the U.S.
Senate before they can be presented to the President for signature. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 indicates that
all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
The structure for making law was established by the
Founding Fathers in the way that it was in order to ensure that all parts of
the system had a voice in the approval, or disapproval, of the law. The people through their representatives in
the House of Representatives voted their approval or disapproval of the bill,
the States did the same through their voice in the United States Senate, and
the federal government’s voice through the executive was the final
approval. If the executive did not like
the proposed law, he could veto it. However, all did not stop there. If Congress felt strongly enough about the
bill, and had enough votes, they could override the veto with two-thirds vote
in each House and make the bill a law without the signature of approval from
the President.
In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in
which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures
appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice
of the States. The Senators at that time
voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent
of protecting their State’s sovereignty, in mind. With the House of Representatives acting as
the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the
dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.
The process of making a law as originally intended
ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, all each had
the opportunity to approve or disapprove the piece of legislation. If either the people or the States did not
like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped. If the federal government, via the President,
felt the bill was unconstitutional, or that its passage is not in the best
interest of the nation, he could veto the bill.
The veto by the President in turn could be overturned with a two thirds
vote from each house of Congress. The
reason for this system was for the purpose of checks and balances, and to keep
the States involved in monitoring the federal government through advise and
consent authorities. This gave the
people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S.
Senate, the ability to check each other, and the ability of them together to
check the federal government. The
people and the States together, if in agreement, served as a united check
against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law,
the executive branch.
We The People hold original authority in the
process of making law. The members of
the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are voted into
office by direct election of the people.
All of the officials involved with appointing or electing members of the
branches of the federal government (as well as the U.S. Senate prior to 1913)
were also originally voted into office by the general population. Our original authority also reaches even
farther back than the descriptions above, because it was the people, as the
sovereign states of the union, who originally held all of the authorities prior
to the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Under British rule, original authority
belonged to the monarchy, as per Royal Prerogative; but in the United States,
original authority belonged to the people.
By Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 establishing that
all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the
Constitution grants to the voice of the people the power to fund, or defund,
any function of government affected by legislative action. The power of the purse-strings gives the
House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of
government, and ultimately gives the House of Representatives a significant amount
of power. Should the House of Representatives, for example, disapprove of a
military action being carried out by the Commander in Chief, the action can be
stopped by the House of Representatives simply defunding the military operation
by not including funding for that action in a budget proposal. Refusal to accept the proposal by the Senate,
or the Executive, places at risk the funding for other parts of government as
well. The Senate, though unable to
originate bills raising revenue, may propose amendments to be added to such a
bill that originated in the House of Representatives, but no bill raising
revenue may originate in the Senate.
Upon approval by the Senate, if the Senate made changes, the bill would
still need to go back to the House of Representatives for approval. The approval by both houses of Congress must
be for an identical bill.
If the President approves the bill, and signs it after
it has been approved with a majority vote in each of the two houses of
Congress, the bill becomes law. If the
President does not approve of the bill, he may refuse to sign it, or veto the
bill, and return it with a written explanation of his disapproval.
Should the Houses of the United States Congress
determine with a two-thirds vote in each house to reconsider the bill, the bill
will still become law despite the executive objection.
All votes in the two houses of Congress shall be
determined by yeas and nays, which will be entered into the respective house’s
journal. The journal entry will include
the names and votes of the members voting for, or against, the bill.
If the President refuses to sign the bill presented to
him, but does not return the bill with his written objection within ten days
(excluding Sundays) the bill becomes law as if the President signed it. The exception to this clause is if Congress
does anything to prevent the bill’s return, such as through their
adjournment. In that case, the bill
remains to be only a bill, and only becomes law should any of the afore
mentioned processes be met.
Terms:
Original
Authority: Principal agent holding legal authority; initial
power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
Veto: The power of a chief executive to reject a bill
passed by the legislature and thus prevent or delay its enactment into law.
Questions
for Discussion:
1. Why did the
Founding Fathers decide to give the power of the purse to the House of
Representatives?
2. How did the
Senators being appointed by the State Legislatures enable State involvement in
the federal government?
3. If the
people have original authority, how does that affect the relationship between
the people through their States, and the Federal Government?
Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The
Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution – Learning from the
Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos:
The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon
Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Enumerated
Powers
The powers granted to the federal government in
relation to legislative powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. These authorities are also known as “Express
Powers.”
Implied Powers is a concept invented by
Alexander Hamilton while he served as treasury secretary in 1791. He wrote in a report titled, “Opinion on the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States” that “there are implied, as
well as express powers, in the Constitution, and that the former are as
effectually delegated as the latter.
Implied powers are to be considered as delegated to the federal
government equally with the express ones.”
Hamilton, in his report, went on to argue that a
nationalized bank was one of these implied powers. Hamilton’s argument stated that his power to
create a nationalized bank was implied as “necessary and proper” for the
federal government to carry out its enumerated powers, such as borrowing money,
regulating currency, and providing for the general welfare of the country.
Thomas Jefferson disagreed, arguing that the express
powers delegated to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution were expressly stated because they were the only powers granted to
the federal government by the sovereign States when they ratified the
Constitution. New authorities could only
be granted by the amendment process, which includes the requirement of
ratification by three-quarters of the States.
The Concept of Implied Powers remained, and the
statists of history have used Implied Powers to rewrite the Constitution
through regulatory actions, and liberal judicial activism.
From the emergence of Implied Powers came the theory
that the Constitution is a living document that can be modified at will through
interpretation and the use of Implied Law.
Hamilton’s concept of Implied Powers laid the groundwork for generations
of lawyers and judges using the courts, rather than the amendment process, to
alter the Constitution, and render the limiting principals powerless. The concept of Implied Powers is one of the
concepts that have fed the false idea that the courts “interpret” the
Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton also argued that there were
“resulting powers” as well, which are powers that exist as a result of any
action the government takes. These
“resulting powers” are de facto constitutional by virtue of the fact that the
action by the federal government occurred in the first place.
With the use of the concepts of Implied Powers and
resulting powers, Hamilton believed the central government had unlimited powers
to act as any member of the federal government deemed necessary.
General
Welfare Clause
“If
Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will
promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one,
possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular
exceptions.” –James Madison
The General Welfare Clause is one of the most
misunderstood clauses in the U.S. Constitution – and it was not even supposed
to be a clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 includes “General
Welfare” not as an authority to the federal government, but as a
description of the Republic should the laws of the land be made in accordance
with the authorities granted by the Constitution.
If we go back to the Preamble, we read that one of the
reasons the Founding Fathers created this new government with the writing of
the Constitution was to “insure domestic Tranquility.” One must ask, “Why was there a need for
domestic tranquility?”
The States were much like siblings. The States fought over just about
everything. They argued over commerce,
borders, legal jurisdictions, currency, weights and measures, communication,
religion, and a number of other issues.
Yet, despite their disagreements, when it came to the American
Revolution, they united against a common enemy.
After the war, the quarrels resumed.
The fighting between the States became such a problem that many worried
it would tear apart the union. One of
the many reasons for the need of a new government, as provided by the U.S.
Constitution, was so that the central government would have enough authorities
to act as a mediator between the States.
Acting as a referee in matters that caused disputes
between the States would help the federal government provide for the General
Welfare of the republic.
Another reason for the writing of the new constitution
was to give the federal government enough power to defend the union from invasion
and domestic insurrection. Under the
Articles of Confederation, the central government was unable to provide for the
common defense because the government did not have the authority, nor the
financial means, to field a military.
With the ability to field a fighting force, the federal government would
be able to protect the States from foreign invasion, while also keeping
internal conflict at bay as well.
By providing for the common defense, the federal
government would also be ensuring the General Welfare of the Republic.
In other words, if the federal government was doing
what it was supposed to do, as a mediator between the States, and as a
protector of the States by providing for the common defense, the States would
enjoy a general welfare of the republic.
The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that squabbles, internal
conflict, or foreign intrusion did not place the welfare of the union in
jeopardy.
General Welfare is an adjective, not an authority.
The General Welfare of the republic was the goal,
which would be achieved if the federal government abided by the limiting
principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Taxes and
Debt
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to lay
and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.
The authority to tax was for the express purpose of
protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. The federal government could tax the States
only if the taxes were uniform throughout the United States. The federal government could not originally
tax the individual citizens directly.
The stated purposes for giving the Congress the power
to tax are to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States.”
The need for the central government to be able to
defend the union militarily was one of the initial reasons the Founding Fathers
planned the Constitutional Convention at the Annapolis Convention in 1786. Shays’ Rebellion proved to the founders that
the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to defend the
union.
Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention
were concerned that a military may be used by the federal government against
the States, but the reality of the world they lived in was that the union would
not survive without the ability to defend itself. It was argued that the
independent militias needed to be joined under a single federal army, and for
the protection of the trade routes a United States Navy also needed to be
established. In order to have a
military, however, the federal government would need the power to tax in order
to pay for the military it would be afforded.
The second clause of Article I, Section 8 grants the
authority to the U.S. Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United
States. If the federal government ever
found the necessity to enter into military operations on the battlefield, to
help pay for the expensive endeavor of warfare, the federal government would
need to be able to borrow money for the war effort. Therefore, the States
through the new Constitution granted to the federal government the authority to
create a national debt. The founders did
not recognize any reason other than for war that the United States would need
to borrow money. Alexander Hamilton,
however, suggested that a continuous national debt was necessary to hold
together the union, for if the States all felt they were responsible for the
repayment of the deficit, they would be less likely to break away from the
union.
Commerce
Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress
the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes.
Remember, the States did not get along too well. Like siblings, they argued over just about
everything. The individual States
bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As
sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the
other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the
squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State
lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what
was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.
When you turn on a faucet full blast you are
regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it
by turning the faucet off. Likewise, the
federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the
flow of commerce between the States was more regular.
The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its
second definition: “To put in good order.”
Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant “To make
regular.” The word “restrict” was not
used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the
word. In today’s dictionary “restrict”
appears in the first definition of regulate.
Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to
mean the opposite of its original intent.
The Commerce Clause in today’s political atmosphere is used as a means
to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to
adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise
that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily,
and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not
only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The
Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why
would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over
interstate commerce as suggested by today’s progressive?
The federal government’s role according to the
Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of
commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign
nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a
more active role.
Naturalization
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the Congress the
authority to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization. What this means is that all naturalization
rules must be identical in all States.
One State cannot decide to have rules for naturalization that are
different than what the federal government has established. This is an example
of an “exclusive jurisdiction.”
However, realize that immigration is not mentioned here. Immigration is a concurrent issue, with
authorities held by both federal government and the States.
Bankruptcies
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the federal
government is also given the authority to establish uniform rules on the
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution,
each State had its own rules on bankruptcy.
Citizens would simply cross state lines to start over financially. The clause bringing bankruptcy under federal
jurisdiction was for the purpose to stop the abuses, and to establish uniform
rules nationwide.
Money,
Weights, and Measures
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 establishes that the
duty of coining money belonged to Congress.
Note that the Constitution called for coining money, rather than
printing federal reserve notes (bills of credit). The coins produced by Congress were expected
to be made of metals that reflected the worth of the coins. In other words, the
gold in a coin, if taken to a goldsmith, would be worth the same as the value
of the coin. Later, the banks realized they could loan on the gold in their
vaults backing the currency, leaving less gold as a reserve. They did this by issuing receipts, or bills
of credit. When this happened, if there
was a bank run, where everyone brought their receipts in to cash it in for gold
all at once, the bank would be left in a situation where they did not have
enough gold to cover all of the notes.
If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation, it
is important to note that under the confederation, there had been no power
given to the central government to regulate the value of foreign coin, an
omission, which in a great measure would destroy any uniformity in the value of
the current coin, since the respective states might, by different regulations,
create a different value in each. As a result, the States were prohibited in
Article I, Section 10 from coining their own money, thus taking away their
ability to manipulate the value of currency as a means of effecting the
economies of the other states.
The authority to coin money was given specifically to
Congress so that no outside interest could manipulate the value of American
money. This included private banks. Nonetheless, we have seen three nationalized
banks run by private bankers in the United States issuing the currency. The third is the currently existing Federal
Reserve Bank.
Thomas Jefferson was against national banks. Alexander Hamilton created the “Bank of the
United States” in 1791 for the purpose of acting as a depository of government
funds, issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver, and creating a system
of mercantilism in America. The bank’s
charter lapsed in 1811. The Second Bank
of the United States was formed in 1817, and lasted until President Andrew
Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1836. The bank existed for 5 more years as an
ordinary bank before going bankrupt in 1841.
In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I sincerely believe, with you, that banking
establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle
of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but
swindling futurity on a large scale.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 also establishes that
Congress shall have the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Fixing a standard of weights and measures was
important for the reason of uniformity, and the ease of commerce. This clause suggests
that before the Constitutional Convention the States were able to independently
fix their own weights and measures, which not only added confusion to commerce,
but enabled the States of use unsavory trading tactics against each other.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 establishes that the U.S.
Congress will provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the United States. This
power would naturally flow, as an incident, from the antecedent powers to
borrow money, and regulate the coinage.
Indeed, without the ability to provide for the punishment of
counterfeiting, the powers of coining money or creating securities would be
without any adequate sanction. The word “securities,” in this clause, means: a
contract that can be assigned a value so that it may be traded, like a “bond.”
Post
Offices and Roadways
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 the Congress is
granted the authority to establish post offices and post roads.
As with the other clauses in Article I, Section 8,
this clause is designed to promote the Union. In this case, it ensures that
communication remains intact. The clause
gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices, but
nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to
partially privatize the post office as we have seen in the modern era.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the federal
government the authority to “establish” post roads, but not create or maintain
them. The Constitution does not give the federal government any other authority
over roadways. In fact, this is the only reference to roadways to the federal
government in the entire Constitution.
This clause makes the federal highway and Interstate highway system, as
well as the other workings of the federal transportation department,
unconstitutional. It was up to the States to create and maintain their
roadways. If the States desired to remain connected, and receive their mail,
they would keep up their roads.
In 1817, Congress proposed a bill that would provide
federal funding for boatways and roadways, claiming it was for the “general
welfare” of the nation. President James Madison vetoed the bill, claiming it to
be unconstitutional, because the federal government was not given the authority
to fund transportation routes.
Patents and
Copyrights
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress to
promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.
This clause is the basis for the creation of the U.S.
Patent Office, and Copyright Office. Patent and copyright protections already
existed in the British Empire, and for the protection of American inventions
and writings, the Founding Fathers saw the need to establish such a power under
the federal government as well, expecting that by being under federal
authority, the rules would be uniform.
Federal
Inferior Courts
Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to
constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This means that the legislative branch was
tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts. However, by enabling Congress to establish
new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an
opportunity to abuse this power in the hopes of stacking the courts. John Adams was the first example of this
abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain
federalist power in the courts as Jefferson’s Republicans gained the White
House, and the majority in Congress.
Some may argue that Adams’ decision to expand the court was not as
sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been
requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to
“pack” the court with justices favorable to his social policies. His animosity toward the Supreme Court
emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government
intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely
appointed by his rival Republicans.
The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the
National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.
Roosevelt’s anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold
contempt for the conservative-minded court of “Nine Old Men.” In January 1936, the court ruled the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.
In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he
was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The
measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do
so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one
older than 70. If the bill passed, it
would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately,
increasing the size of the court to 15 members.
The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly approve
the appointment of judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt’s
explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.
Both the federal government, and the States, have
court systems. The shared power by both
the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a
concurrent power.
With the ability to establish the inferior courts also
comes the authority to eliminate them. Congress, in addition to the authority
to establish federal inferior courts, can also shut them down. When in the 2012 Republican Campaign Newt
Gingrich stated that Congress should use the federal marshall to bring
unconstitutional judges to face members of Congress and answer for their
actions, he was accurate that Congress can do that.
Trade
Routes and Offenses Against The Law of Nations
Article I Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to
define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offenses against the Law of Nations.
One of the factors in having this included was the problem
with piracy in the Caribbean, as well as difficulties the new nation was having
with the Barbary Pirates (Muslims). Though the United States was careful to
create a system of justice that included due process for the citizens of the
nation, the Constitution gave the federal government the power to punish
offenses by foreign forces on the high seas without having to worry about
habeas corpus, while still providing a courtroom setting for the offenders. In
Federalist 42, Madison carefully explains that this provision “extends no
further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses,”
such as military courts, or international courts for international war crimes.
This clause is the only place where the Law of Nations
is mentioned. Some historians claim that
the capitalization of the “Law of Nations” suggests that the founders were
specifically referring to Vatell’s volumes of which the founders often used for
definitions and the clarification of concepts like Natural Born Citizen.
War,
Army, and Navy
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the
power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water.
During the debates, according to Madison’s Notes on
the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated over whether or not to
give the legislative branch the power to make war. After intense debate, it was decided to grant
the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, the authority to
“wage” war, and Congress the power to declare war. A declaration of war is a
formal declaration that warns those not involved to stay out of the conflict.
If those entities become involved, they become open targets. The president, as per the debates, may wage
war without prior approval by Congress, or without a declaration of war being
issued.
The ability to wage war, however, is checked by the
fact that the House of Representatives are able to refuse to fund any military
conflict. This keeps the president from abusing his position as Commander in
Chief by giving Congress a way to limit executive wartime authorities. If the President continues to act upon his
war powers in a manner not approved of by Congress, and the President does so despite
the lack of funding for the military operations, Congress also has the
authority to impeach the President in order to stop the executive’s
objectionable actions.
A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government
license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and
bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for
prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining
patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally
reviled. These mercenaries was also
known as “privateers.”
Congress was also given the power to make rules
regarding captures on land and water.
This is the clause used when the Bush administration, with the blessings
of Congress, decided to hold prisoners captured during the war on terrorism at
Guantanamo Bay, and to use military tribunals as the vessel of their trials.
Article
I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 authorizes Congress:
To raise
and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
longer Term than two Years;
To
provide and maintain a Navy;
To make
Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Remember that one of the primary reasons for deciding
to hold the Constitutional Convention in the first place was to defend the
union with a uniformed military. Note
that the fear of an army being used by a centralized government, and a
potentially tyrannical government for that matter, as had been in the case with
the British Empire, influenced the writings of this document, and encouraged
the founders to limit the existence and funding of an army to two years at a
time. A navy, however, was deemed as much more important, particularly because
of the need to protect trade routes, and America’s immediate waterways and
inlets. Therefore, the authority to provide and maintain a navy was granted in
perpetuity. The United States Marine
Corps, from the beginning, falls under the umbrella of the United States Navy.
The rules for the governance of the armed forces do
not fall under the purview of the Constitution. It is up to Congress to provide
the governing rules. Any claim that
rules regarding the military are unconstitutional is a bad argument. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14,
it is up to Congress to set the rules, regardless of the Constitution. Military training in order for the armed
forces to be well disciplined may not benefit from same social rules of the
civilian world. Therefore, the basis of
governance over the armed forces is not the Constitution, but instead the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it is the military’s duty to protect
and preserve the U.S. Constitution, and in a manner of tradition,
Constitutional Principles have an unofficial influence on military politics.
Congress also has the authority to call forth the
Militia to execute the laws of the Union (Constitutional federal laws),
suppress insurrections (inserted in response to Shays’ Rebellion), and repel
invasions (one may consider the illegal entry into the United States an
invasion, therefore this clause gives the federal government the authority to use
the militia to guard the national borders).
Currently, in this country, we have an organized militia (National
Guard, State Militias), and an unorganized militia (you and I). U.S. Code Title
10 still defines these militias as such.
Federal
Properties
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 calls for the Congress
to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
This clause was for the creation of Washington DC,
giving the United States Congress exclusive legislative powers over the
District of Columbia and other federal properties, and to allow the federal
government to erect military bases, and other necessary federal facilities by
consent of the Legislatures of the States in which those properties are
obtained, and for the federal government to purchase those properties. This
makes land seized for conservation, and National Parks, unconstitutional, for
those were not approved by the States, nor purchased by the federal government,
and finally it is not being utilized for the purpose of the erection of
“needful buildings.”
Necessary
and Proper Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the
“necessary and proper” clause. It reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
Today’s government officials misuse this clause
greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the “foregoing powers”
(authorities herein granted). What that
means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities
granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be “necessary
and proper.” Today’s federal government
has taken this clause to mean they can make “any” law they feel to be necessary
and proper.
“The
plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and
instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the
express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a
grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the
removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those,
otherwise granted, are included in the grant.” –Joseph Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
In order to carry out some express powers of the
Constitution sometimes certain actions by the government are necessary and
proper. For example, when establishing a
post office, as expressly authorized by this article and section, the federal
government will have to grade the land, hire construction crews, purchase the
equipment for carrying out the services of the post office, and so forth. All of these things are necessary and proper
in order to carry out the “foregoing power” of establishing a post office.
This clause is also sometimes referred to as the
“Elastic Clause.”
Terms:
Concurrent
Powers: Powers that are shared by the state and the federal government. The power to enforce immigration is also a
concurrent power.
Duties: A tax
levied by a government on the import or export of goods.
Excise: Tax on
the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue
certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges.
Exclusive
Powers: Sole authority over a particular power, be it for the States within
their own territorial boundaries, or sole federal powers. Also known as Reserved Powers.
Express
Powers: Authorities explicitly authorized to the federal government by the
U.S. Constitution.
Implied
Powers: Legal or governmental authority not expressly stated by the U.S.
Constitution, but considered to be logical extensions or implications of the
other powers delegated in the Constitution.
The concept of Implied Powers is often defended by the Necessary and
Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). Implied Powers is an unconstitutional concept.
Imposts: A tax,
especially an import duty; Import Duty is a tariff paid at a border or port of
entry to the relevant government to allow a good to pass into that government’s
territory.
Questions
for Discussion:
1. True power
of government is the ability to make law.
Is listing the authorities in Article I the founders way of telling us
that?
2. How has the
unconstitutional concept of Implied Powers been used in today’s political
atmosphere?
3. How has the
war powers been misused in recent years?
4. Name
examples of how the Commerce Clause has been misused?
5. If post
roads are the only mention of roadways in the Constitution, then what does that
say about recent attempts by the federal government to fund public works
projects?
6. The Necessary
and Proper Clause depends upon the laws being within Constitutional
Authority. Are there other clauses
requiring this as well?
Resources:
Andrew M. Allison, Mr. Richard Maxfield, K. Delynn
Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National
Center for Constitutional Studies (2009).
Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781;
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and
Schuster (2001).
Donald Porter Geddes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt – A
Memorial; New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945).
Ethan Pope, America’s Financial Demise; Dallas:
Intersect Press (2010).
James Madison, Federalist No. 41: General View of the
Powers Conferred by The Constitution (addresses General Welfare Clause as
well), http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
James Madison, Federalist No. 42: The Powers Conferred
by the Constitution, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp
James Madison, Veto of Federal Public Works Bill 1817;
Constitution dot org: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen,
The Real George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional
Studies (2010).
K. Daniel Glover, FDR’s Court-Packing Fiasco; Enter
Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm
(1999).
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s
History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention,
Avalon Project, Yale University:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Robert Brown, Gold and Silver Coin or Paper Money?;
The John Birch Society:
http://www.jbs.org/blog/gold-and-silver-coin-or-paper-money.html (2010)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse; New York: Three
Rivers Press (2008).
U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, §
311: Militia: composition and classes;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311—-000-.html
Copyright:
Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014
