Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 12)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

********************

7. Banking and The Federal Reserve Act (Part 7)

· What is the difference between a Silver Certificate and a Federal Reserve Note? [A Silver Certificate was backed by real silver, and could actually be exchanged for the amount in silver at the treasury. A Federal Reserve Note is not backed by precious metal or anything of value, but is only worth the face amount because the government says so.]

· What was the purpose for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913? Did it work? [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the purpose of being able to expand or contract the money supply if the government decided it was needed. They feared that people might place a demand for their money or that the stock market was too volatile without this “control”. Unfortunately, it did not work, because the stock market crashed in an historic manner just sixteen years later. The economy continues to fluctuate as much or more than it did before the Federal Reserve was created.]

· What economic occurrence happened after the Federal Reserve was created, one that had not happened before? Explain what this occurrence does to prices. [Inflation occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Prior to this, the prices of goods remained essentially the same for over a hundred years. When the Reserve was given the power to print money, the supply of money goes up and the value of each dollar goes down. This causes prices to rise. This continues to happen today.]

· Extra – Go to your library and check out an 1897 Sears catalog or an 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog (these are readily available at most libraries) or locate other old catalogs from department stores. Compare the prices of similar items from back then to prices today. Calculate the percentage rise in prices for different items. Do you observe the effect of inflation?

· Extra – Do you believe the economy would be better served with more or less government intervention? Do you think a return to the gold or silver standard would be beneficial or harmful?

8. (Mis)interpreting the General Welfare Clause (Part 8)

· Where does the General Welfare clause appear in the Constitution? [It appears twice – once in the Preamble and once in Article 1, Section 8.]

· Does the Constitution explicitly give the federal government the ability to collect taxes and distribute them to states for road construction projects? [No, the Constitution is fairly silent about what the government may spend money on. From a previous lesson, we see that they are directed to fund the military for the protection of our nation, but there is little else that is named specifically in the Constitution that the government may fund.]
· In today’s federal government, is there very much debate about whether or not the government should be involved in a spending program? [We still see some debate in a couple of areas – most notably in the areas of gun laws or abortion. People feel passionately about these topics and so they still make arguments about whether or not the government should be involved. But by and large, most people now raise no questions about whether or not the government should be involved in spending for road construction, healthcare, etc. It’s become a foregone conclusion. However, in the era of the founding fathers, there would have been much debate over these issues and whether the government should participate.]

· Extra – How do you feel about the topic of government spending on various programs? Consult today’s news media and make a list of programs where you see the government spending tax money. Are these areas listed in the Constitution or the Amendments?

· Extra – In your opinion, did most founding fathers intend for the amount of government spending and involvement that we have today? You might look up some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Patrick Henry.

9. The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

· When Marbury brought his case before the Supreme Court, what exactly was the purpose of his case? [It was simply to get Hamilton to sign his commission, so that he could take on the role of a federal judge. Marbury cited the Judicial Act of 1789 as the basis for his lawsuit.]

· What was the unprecedented (and some would say shocking) thing that the Supreme Court did regarding Marbury’s case? [They referred the case back to a lower court, but at the same time declared that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. This was never before done – that is, the Supreme Court had never before declared something to be unconstitutional (nor had they been asked to rule on the constitutionality of something). The shocking part was that the Court decided on its own that it had the authority to make this judgment.]

· State the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. [Judicial activists believe that there are implied powers in the Constitution and that the document is up for changing evaluation and interpretation as the times change. This results in the government expanding its powers over more and more topics as time goes on. Those who believe in judicial restraint believe that the Constitution is very explicit about areas where the government should be involved. They believe that where the Constitution is silent about a topic, the government likely has no authority.]

· What fictitious human right did the Supreme Court refer to in the Roe vs. Wade case? [The right to privacy was the basis of their argument. While most people may agree that privacy is a good thing, there is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution. The word does not even appear in the Constitution.]

· Extra – What is your opinion on judicial activism versus judicial restraint? Do you believe in one over the other? Give your reasons.

· Extra – Do some research on Justice John Marshall. How do you think he was viewed by judicial restraint advocates such as Thomas Jefferson?

**************
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 11)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

**************

4. Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

· Name two events in American history which established a federal income tax. [The first, started during Abraham Lincoln’s administration to pay for the Civil War debt lasted from 1862 to 1872. The second came with the establishment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.]

· Describe why the model where the federal government collects taxes and then gives money back to the states is a potential problem? [The federal government is not required to give the money back in any kind of proportion to the number of people in the states. Therefore, the federal government could potentially give money disproportionately, and almost certainly will. Money earned in one state and taxed may not come back to benefit that state or its taxpayers.]

· Write out the words of the Sixteenth Amendment. While it is very short, what problems can you see in the sentence? [“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” First, “from whatever source derived”” means they can potentially collect taxes on any money transfer. Today, taxes are generally not collected on Internet purchases, but there is nothing to prevent the government from invoking such a tax. “Without apportionment” and “enumeration” means once again that tax benefits can be unequally distributed to people, regardless of who earned it. One could argue that this is very close to the definition of socialism.]

· Extra – Describe how a system of federal taxation can shift the balance of power away from states and toward the federal government. In your opinion, has that happened? Why or why not?

· Extra – Look up the definitions of socialism, collectivism, communism, and capitalism. In your opinion, which one most closely aligns with the idea of federal taxation and re-distribution?

5. Secession and Nullification (Part 5)

· How many states seceded from the Union during the time of the Civil War? Which was the first state to secede? Was your state one of the ones that seceded? [Thirteen states ultimately seceded from the United States, with South Carolina being the first in December of 1860. Tennessee was the last to secede in June, 1861. States seceded over perceived violations of the United States Constitution by the Lincoln administration. The list of States who seceded from the Union include South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee]

· Did the people in the Northern states want to prevent the seceding states from leaving the Union and bring them back into the Union forcefully? [According to Horace Greeley, nine out of ten people in the Northern states agreed that the states’ right to secede from the Union was more important than preserving the Union as a whole. It appears that most people understood well the right of states to secede and they supported it.]

· Summarize the “power pyramid” between individuals, states, and the federal government. How did the founders view this pyramid? How do you think it looks today? [The founders believed in individual rights above all else – this was made clear in their writings and in the Declaration of Independence itself. Next were states’ rights, as is also clearly demonstrated in their writings. The federal government was originally designed to be the weakest of the three. In today’s United States, these roles appear to be reversed. From Part 4 of this series, the Sixteenth Amendment probably had a lot to do with this reversal.]

· Extra – Write an essay weighing the good and bad of Lincoln’s decision to enter into the Civil War. Consider both sides - the abolishment of slavery vs. the abridgement of a state’s right to secede.

· Extra – look up the “South Carolina Declaration of The Causes of Secession”. Outline the state’s reasons for deciding to leave the Union.

6. Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers (Part 6)

· Define the concept of express (or enumerated) powers. [A person who believes in enumerated powers allows that only what is listed specifically in the Constitution is applicable to government. This is in line with Thomas Jefferson’s thinking – that government only has the authority to do exactly what is listed in the Constitution – nothing else.]

· Define the concept of implied powers. [A person believing in implied Constitutional powers would hold that government authority can go beyond the specific enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It becomes difficult to define these powers because “implied” can cover a broad range of thinking. It seems that this has happened – consider, does the federal government have the rightful Constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance? We are already seeing Constitutional challenges to this recent law.]

· Did the founding fathers believe that the original Constitution would be completely sufficient for the future? Why or why not? [The founders included Article 5 in the Constitution, which allows for an Amendment to the Constitution to be made. Since they did this, it seems evident that they believed the Constitution was not made to be unchanged forever.]

· Extra – What do you think would happen in Congress if Congressman Shadegg’s “Enumerated Powers Act” became law? Would there be changes in daily Congressional business?

· Extra – Form an opinion and write down your reasons for supporting enumerated powers or implied powers.

**************
Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 10)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion
questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

*****************

1. Presidential Power (Part 1)

· Which Article of the Constitution deals specifically with the powers given to the President? [Article 2]

· Name two of the six specifically named powers given to the President [Commander in Chief of the military, authority over other members of the Executive branch, the power to grant reprieves and pardons, the ability to make treaties (with congressional approval), the power to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and the authority to appoint Senate vacancies during recess periods]

· What is one danger of giving too much power to one person in government? [The founding fathers fled this very situation in England, because the king began exercising authority over areas such as religion – preventing personal freedoms]

· Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution? [Article 3 of the Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Supreme Court, as does the 11th Amendment. Nowhere in there can one interpret such powers as being given to the Court]

· What are your thoughts on the disagreement between Justice John Marshall and President Andrew Jackson on the power of the Supreme Court? [Jackson appears to argue correctly that the Court was exceeding its authority. Nevertheless, to this day, the Court behaves as if it is the ultimate arbiter on Constitutional law.]

· Extra – Look for news articles, postings or telecasts which may demonstrate the assumption of presidential or Court authority which is not given in the Constitution

2. States’ Rights (Part 2)

· A system emphasizing the idea of states’ rights is called what? [Federalism]

· Have United States Senators always been elected by the people every six years? When did this change, and what changed it? How were they previously selected? [No, U.S. Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.]

· Do you believe that the founding fathers would place more importance on power emanating from the states or from the federal government? [It seems clear in reviewing the words of most founding fathers and documents such as the Constitution that they favored states’ rights. They seemed opposed to a great deal of authority at the federal level, probably because of their experience with the monarchy back in England. In fact, it took a Constitutional Amendment to change the appointment of Senators to a direct election. If they had to amend the Constitution to provide for this, it seems clear that it was not the founders intent.]

· Extra – In your opinion, is there an important difference between a state-appointed Senator and an elected one? Describe why. Consider what may influence their decision-making in each case.

3. Government Debt (Part 3)

· Does the Constitution allow the federal government to run a deficit and go into debt? [The Constitution does not specifically prohibit debt at the federal government level, and seems to imply that it can assume debt or establish new debt (as in Article 6).]

· Can we get an itemized tax bill from the government telling us exactly where our tax money is being spent? Why would this be a good idea? [Unfortunately, no. It would be good to be able to get one because it would cause the government to have more responsibility in where it spends our money if they knew they were going to have to tell us where every dollar goes. It is too bad that we don’t have this transparency from our government. Note that it doesn’t work the other way – we have to tell the government where we get and spend every dollar of our money when we fill out our yearly tax forms.]

· Does all tax money that is collected this year go only toward programs that happen this year? [No, the government uses a lot of this year’s money to pay for programs that were implemented years ago. Likewise, they use this year’s money to pay interest on borrowing that that did in the past.]

· Extra – What do you think the danger of an increasing national debt could be? [There may come a time when the debt cannot be paid because of a loss of prosperity. If that occurs, other nations who we have borrowed from (such as China) may feel obliged to get their money back through some other means. It also may mean that the world financial markets will switch from their standard currency – the U.S. dollar. This would put the United States on a lower-status financial footing. It may mean that the United States loses its position as a world superpower.]

· Extra – Do you think government spending and debt should be any different than personal spending and debt? Why or why not?

**************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series
....

Brought To My Census – Part 2

In the first article on our family’s census experience, I talked about my opposition to any census questions that go beyond my name and the number of people in my family. My resistance to this practice is that the questions are racist – they are certainly not blind to skin color or ethnic heritage. Also, I believe the questions go far beyond the reach of what the Constitution allows in Article 1, Section 2. I’m probably in a very small minority who is offended by the direction of the questions. But I am not going to answer them.

So it is ironic that the government chose my family to receive an additional set of questions to answer this year – the American Community Survey. Every month, on a rotating basis, 250,000 homes are randomly selected to receive the survey. The survey itself is a whopping twenty-eight pages long – and if there are five people in your household, there are potentially 272 questions to answer! Some of the questions include date of birth, race, where you were born, and if you are a citizen of the United States. And then the questions go on to ask (and I’m not making these up):

· What year was your house built?

· How many rooms in your home are bedrooms?

· Does your house have a flush toilet? (!!!) A stove? A refrigerator?

· How many cars do you own?

· What was your previous month’s electricity bill?

· How much do you think you could sell your house for?

· How much is your home insurance payment? Your monthly mortgage payment?

· What is the highest degree of schooling that you obtained?

· “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?”

· What is your marital status?

· At what location did you work last week (provide the address)?

And on, and on. The personal nature of many of these questions is alarming. But even with all of this intrusion into my privacy, the real problem for me is this:

The government tells me that I am legally required to answer every one of these questions.

I know this because they have now visited me twice at my house, and called me three times (twice during evening hours) to tell me so. They have been pushing to get these answers from me or my wife, and the last two phone calls have been downright threatening. My name, and the number of people in my household is all that I am giving them. In fact, I didn’t give them my telephone number, but they told me that they worked with the telephone company to match my address and obtain it (I mean, hey, it’s right there in the White Pages, but they went out of their way to tell me that they had “worked with the phone company”).

They proceed to tell me that Title 13 of the United States Code, Sections 141 and 143, gives them the authority to demand my response, and makes it mandatory. I tell them that Title 13 is unconstitutional. They don’t have an answer for that, except to say “Okay”, and put me back on the calling list for next week.

I found the answer to fix this as well. The person calling you will tell you that they cannot take you off the calling list – that you will be put back on the call rotation for an indefinite period until you answer the questions (or they finally give up). The secret? Ask for a supervisor. Unlike the typical census call person, the supervisor can mark you down as a refusal, and take you off the list.

Or at least that is what they told me this week. We’ll see.

Constitutional Law Degrees Must Not Be What They Used To Be

I know the biggest takeaway moment from President Obama’s State of the Union address has been his indecorous criticism of the Supreme Court. But I think there was another moment that deserves some attention as well. At one point, he said,

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

I find three things worthy of mention here.

1) Um, the Constitution says nothing about us being created equal – that would be the Declaration of Independence, Mr. President. Specifically,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2) The Constitution is designed to protect U.S. citizens, even if they don’t abide by the law. Our civil protection is not jeopardized if we break the law. In fact, much of the law is written to ensure the fair treatment of those who have broken it. That makes us a pretty rare find in the political world. Or, at least, I hope it still does.

3) The President said that if we “adhere to common values”, then we should not be treated differently, and that this is “enshrined in our Constitution”. Again, a search on the word “values” or its synonyms turns up nothing like this in the document. And the idea of “common values” is completely in conflict with the first part of his statement – that “we find unity in our incredible diversity”. Even more disturbing, is he implying that some of us will lose the privilege of equitable treatment if we stray from this generic set of common values? Hmmmm…he may actually be right about that one. I’m thinking of Tim Tebow and the upcoming Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad.

One would think that a Constitutional law scholar from Harvard would have a better grasp of what the document actually says. But maybe, an Ivy League degree isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Perhaps he should consider sitting down for a moment to read the Constitution…

**********************

If you are interested in learning more about the principles in The U.S. Constitution, please visit the Constitutional Education series.

Getting a Constitutional Education – The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Late in the year 1800, John Adams was narrowly defeated in the presidential election by Thomas Jefferson. In an effort to “pack the courts” with Federalist judges of his own thinking, Adams made dozens of judicial appointments just before he left office (these were called “midnight appointments”). To complete the appointment, a nominee had to be both approved by Congress and have their commission signed by the Secretary of State.

Due to a curious oversight, a few of the appointees never had their commission signed under the outgoing administration, and were left waiting for the signature of the new Secretary, James Madison. One of these pending appointees was William Marbury. So began the famous Marbury vs. Madison court case.

Madison refused to sign the commission, and Marbury sued, immediately taking his case to the Supreme Court. He contended that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Madison should be forced to sign his commission – that a writ of mandamus should be written by the court requiring him to do so. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that Marbury should be appointed, but that the Judiciary Act law that he was citing was really unconstitutional, and that he should take his case back to a lower court.

Marbury lost the case, but the real story here was that the Supreme Court, for the first time, had single-handedly declared an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. In essence, the Court asserted authority over Congress in an unprecedented manner, essentially giving itself the supreme right to interpret the Constitution. To us today, that may not seem like big news, but the fact is that the Constitution does not anywhere give the Supreme Court this power! Article 3 of the Constitution details the jurisdiction and duties of the Supreme Court, and indeed, Section 2 seems to imply that Marbury may have been in the wrong court. But the brazenness of Chief Justice John Marshall to unilaterally strike down an Act of Congress was unheard of before this event (and curiously, John Marshall was the Secretary of State in the Adams administration who had accidentally forgotten to sign Marbury’s commission before being appointed Chief Justice!)

Thomas Jefferson was incensed at the judicial ruling, and wrote, “Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” For Jefferson, the founders intended for the three branches of government to be in equal balance, with no single branch having supreme authority to interpret the Constitution.

With a precedent such as Marbury vs. Madison on the record, that precept has been lost. Today, we live in a time where it is generally accepted that the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, with the authority to rescind or make demands on both the Congress and the President. But a simple reading of the Constitution shows that no such power was meant. This was the beginning of judicial activism.

Judicial activists submit that the Constitution is a “living document” and that powers and nuances not mentioned explicitly in the text may be “implied”. The opposite of this position is judicial restraint, which argues for a very conservative approach to rulings. A judge exercising judicial restraint will overturn a law only if it is obviously unconstitutional. In the case of Marbury, judicial restraint would likely have found a judge simply sending the case back with no ruling, rather than explicitly declaring the law unconstitutional. An advocate of judicial restraint, Ronald Reagan said “I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism."

Judicial activism has grown beyond just the assertion of supreme constitutional authority. Today, we see many judges making rulings based on their own opinion, and not citing a legal precedence. Roe vs. Wade is probably the most far-reaching example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court cited the “right to privacy” to allow a woman to terminate her own pregnancy, but admitted in their own written ruling that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." If judges are allowed to make laws with no Constitutional backing or precedent, then what happens to justice? Rather than relying on the written Constitution to govern our land, it becomes a matter of individual opinion, and the court system becomes nothing more than a game of “packing the courts” with judges who are sympathetic to an individual cause. This makes a mockery of justice, and undermines the real intent of the founders when they penned that most important document – the Constitution of the United States of America.

**********************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the main index article.
...

Getting a Constitutional Education – (Mis)interpreting the General Welfare Clause (Part 8)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

In this series, we have presented various viewpoints about how the government derives its power and abilities. The truth is that there is much debate over the extent of what the federal government should be involved in. Our nation continues to give up increasing power and authority to the federal government – at the expense of states’ right and individual liberties (see Part 2 and Part 5).

We’ve also seen how the founding fathers had some disagreement over the extent of defined federal powers in the Constitution (Part 6). On the conservative side of the issue, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed the expenditure of federal tax dollars for road-building projects – simply because they could find no authority to explicitly do so in the Constitution. They chose to leave this to the states and to private enterprise.

So where did the idea start that the federal government could get a foothold into almost anything? It all began with four little words in the Preamble of the Constitution – in the very first sentence:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“Promote the general Welfare” – these are words that Thomas Jefferson almost certainly wished that he had left out when writing the document. It is these words upon which most of our governmental leaders base their ability to spend tax money. Read the above preamble once again – but leave out these four words – and you will see an entirely different and far more limited view of government than we have today.

The general welfare clause appears again in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, which lists the powers given to the Congress. And the Congress has used (and sometimes abused) this clause to the fullest – they build roads, fund overseas abortion clinics, impose exhorbitant income taxes, and even tax death through inheritance tax laws. Alexander Hamilton, one of the very first proponents of a liberal definition of “general welfare” said, “[T]he power to raise money is plenary and indefinite [in the Constitution]. The terms general welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed.” Trillions of tax dollars would agree with him.

The sad fact is that promotion of “general welfare” is such an ill-defined and nebulous phrase that there will be no end to the debate over its meaning. Indeed, instead of debating the legality of whether the federal government should fund medical research for cancer, nearly all of our lawmakers will just argue about the amount to spend or which lab in their state will get the money. It seems a foregone conclusion among members of Congress that they have the right to spend our money wherever they wish. And they have taken it even farther – by spending our children’s and grandchildren’s money today, through deficit spending. Any government deficit today must be paid by taxes tomorrow. The amount of debt that our leaders are incurring today necessitates the taxing of money that our offspring have not yet earned. And when you look at it that way, does that really fit with the Constitutional preamble, when it says we should “secure the blessings of Liberty to…our Posterity”? Our posterity is the future generations of Americans that will follow us. Shouldn’t their welfare be taken into account, as well?

Next article: What brought about the birth of “judicial activism”? Was this interpretation intended by the founding fathers? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers (Part 6)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Where does the government derive its powers? What allows the government to legally take actions such as declaring war, taxing an inheritance, or building a highway? The answer is that it must come from the Constitution, or one of its modifiers such as the Bill of Rights or a Constitutional Amendment. Without an authority to refer to, the government could very well be acting in an illegal manner!

The limit of this authority is a topic which was hotly debated by the founding fathers. Having escaped from the tyranny of King George III in Britain and his frequently oppressive rule, the founders were conscious that they should avoid the formation of a government which could impose subjective and capricious rules on its people. In their eyes, the government was in place to support the people’s will – not crush their liberties. And so they were very specific about defining the role and powers given to the government.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details the powers that Congress may employ. This section lists exactly eighteen different “powers”, and includes items such as the ability to collect taxes to pay for defense and general welfare, to borrow money, to coin money, to establish Post Offices, to declare war, and to maintain a navy. Obviously, the list has to have limits, as it cannot go on forever. There are some debatable items in the list regarding the extent to which they may be taken (such as the General Welfare clause, which we will take up in Part 8), but viewed in perspective, the list is relatively short. Remember, the founders intended for specifics to be delegated by the states – not by the federal government. To add even more weight to this argument, consider the short but powerful words of the Tenth Amendment.

In 1791, President George Washington was considering the idea of a national bank. In order to better understand the constitutionality of this enterprise, he asked two others to provide him with arguments for and against the idea. These two men were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Knowing that these two men were at the opposite ends of the spectrum on the interpretation of the Constitution, he undoubtedly expected to get both sides of the argument. He was not disappointed.

As expected, Thomas Jefferson, a strict and conservative interpreter of the Constitution, found no basis for the legality of establishing a national bank. His belief was that the Constitution listed the express powers of the government – and that there were no other powers to be inferred. In short, if it wasn’t explicitly listed in the Constitution as a federal power, then the government could not legally engage in the act. Thus, the idea of Jeffersonian democracy, which believes that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, and that it should be watched closely.

Alexander Hamilton used this opportunity to formulate a new approach to the Constitution – the idea of implied powers. In his response to Washington, he stated that “there are implied, as well as express powers [in the Constitution], and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.” He added that, “Implied powers are to be considered as delegated [to the federal government] equally with express ones”. In just two sentences, Hamilton advocated for unlimited and unchecked power by the federal government. One could make the argument that he would be happy with the state of our government today.

The problem with implied powers is that there is no clearly defined point at which to restrict the government’s power over the people. Where does the “power grab” end? If we trust that our leaders will understand when they overstep their boundaries and will agree to pull back, then we will be very disappointed, for that is not in their nature. Nevertheless, the founders had to know that they could not think of every possible situation where government involvement might be needed. And indeed, they did know this. Article 5 of the Constitution provides for the ability to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution whenever Congress “shall deem it necessary”. The process to adopt an amendment is not an easy one. The amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the Congress, or two-thirds of the state legislatures. To be adopted, it must be ratified by no less than three-quarters of the state legislatures. Imagine the difficulty in getting 75% of the states to agree on anything! Surely the founders knew this.

And this provides the reasoned argument as to why the concept of implied powers could not have been in the thinking of the writers of the Constitution. Within the words of the Constitution are the instructions for creating and passing changes to the document. If powers were meant to be inferred and added to the government’s list of duties, why make the amendment process so specific and difficult? Clearly, the founders wanted Constitutional change to be an event that was rare and carefully considered. In his farewell address in 1796, Washington said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation…”

There are still a few leaders today who understand this principle. Each year, Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona poses a bill to the United States Congress called the “Enumerated Powers Act”. Adoption of the bill would require that bills proposed to the Congress specifically list the constitutional authority on which the proposal is based. As might be expected, our leaders have not chosen to enact the law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1823, “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” While we witness the ever-increasing federal power grab over our individual liberties, these would be good words to heed.

Next article: What happened to my money when the Federal Reserve Act became law in 1913? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

For anyone who has ever received a paycheck, it may seem hard to imagine a time when there was no such thing as a federal income tax. One-hundred short years ago, there was no federal income tax in place. Today, we take it for granted that a large part – a very large part – of our paycheck will never be deposited in our bank account. We live in a time where the federal government continues to grow bigger and more bloated than ever before. The number of programs funded by our government is vast. Is this practice constitutional?

The original Constitution did not provide for broad powers of taxation at the federal level. Taxes were outlined in Article 1, Section 8, which says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. Disregarding for the moment the “general welfare” clause (which we’ll cover in Part 8), this does not give Congress a lot of things on which to spend money. I certainly don’t see Social Security, payments to illegal immigrants, or the funding of non-US, overseas abortion clinics in those words. In fact, the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution and which give us insight into the mind of the founders, gave the federal government no ability to tax whatsoever. The founding fathers’ ideas on federal taxation may best be summed up in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.

In principle, the very purpose of government was simply to protect the freedom of the individual and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – nothing more. Our government is well beyond that today, in large part due to the Sixteenth Amendment. This amendment was proposed by the administration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and was ratified by the states in 1916. It is one of the briefest amendments, and simply says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Before this Amendment, the federal government had a shaky claim to taxing any of our income. Now, your Congressmen and President have free reign.

The very first round of federal income taxes actually occurred before this date. Under the Abraham Lincoln administration, in 1862, a federal income tax was collected, to help pay for the Civil War. At that time, anyone earning less than $10,000 per year was taxed at a 3% rate; anyone earning more than $10,000 per year was taxed at a rate of 5%. Compare that to what you pay in federal tax today! However, people couldn’t long accept this burden, and the federal income tax was abolished in 1872. It didn’t come back until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.

We spoke of state’s rights in Part 2 of this series. Does the adoption of the federal income tax affect the power of states in any way? Yes, it does. Consider the fact that a great deal of federally-collected money is returned to the states each year. This money is not required to be given back in proportion to the size of the state or the number of its population. So, each state fights for its’ share of the federal money, giving much more power to the elected officials at the national level. State legislatures scrap for every last dollar, whether the cause is noble or even necessary, because someone else will get the money if they don’t. States are often coerced to “toe the line” with regards to federal government wishes, because the feds can threaten to withhold money from the state if the state doesn’t comply with what they want in Washington. An example is the virtual blackmail that occurs whenever a state decides they want to raise the interstate speed limit above the federal recommendation. If they threaten to raise it, the federal government returns the threat by withholding certain funds originally slated for road improvements. Doesn’t it make more sense for the state to both set their speed limit and fix their own roads? Imagine the differences that would ensue! No two states would be alike, and we could glory in their uniqueness! Alas, this is one area where "diversity" is discouraged by the federal government.

Frank Chodorov said it best, in his 1954 paper The Income Tax: Root of All Evil:

“For the Sixteenth Amendment corroded the American concept of natural rights; ultimately reduced the American citizen to a status of subject, so much so that he is not aware of it; enhanced Executive power to the point of reducing Congress to innocuity; and enabled the central government to bribe the states, once independent units, into subservience. No kingship in the history of the world ever exercised more power than our Presidency, or had more of the people’s wealth at its disposal.”

It should be clear that the federal income tax, while both legal and constitutional, exceeds the boundaries envisioned by the founders, in part because of the corruption it creates and the undesirable consolidation of federal power to which it leads. Do you want to fight it? Good luck, because the federal government will use your own tax money to fight you in court and build your prison cell if you refuse to pay…

Next article: What are the concepts of secession and nullification about? And was Abraham Lincoln really a good president? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Government Debt (Part 3)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Imagine if you could simply go out and buy whatever you dream about having, right now, without worry about how you were going to pay for it. For me, that would be a mid-1960’s Chevrolet Corvette, preferably a 1963 or a 1967 with a few special features that I won’t burden you with here. I’ve always wanted one, and there are ways to have one in my garage right now. One of those ways is to simply tell the auto dealer that my kids will pay for it, plus whatever interest accrues between now and then. They can worry about how to pay for it – I want the car now! Most people would think such an approach to be irresponsible and selfish – and they would be right. But this story is an exact allegory to what happens when our government borrows money to pay for a program that they cannot afford today.

Article 6 of the US Constitution allowed the government to assume pre-existing debt before its ratification. One can infer that debt, while perhaps unwise, is certainly not prohibited by the Constitution. Debt is mentioned in one or two other places so, by implication, it would seem that government debt is allowed.

At one time, if the federal government wanted to enact a new program, they would pose the idea, discuss it, and if it passed the Congress in a vote, it would be financed by a new tax or a re-direction of existing money. But we live in a time when Congress behaves with far more impatience. Rather than wait to ensure that the money exists, Congress simply borrows the money, assumes a debt, and promises to repay it at a later date. As you might imagine, it is much easier to get funding by borrowing than it is to gain permission from the people through a new tax. Let’s face it, we don’t get an itemized tax bill from the government telling us exactly where our money is going. If we did, I have a feeling that we would be surprised…and not a little upset.

Government programs can grow unchecked because their cost is deferred to the future. Like the Corvette example, our politicians are comfortable allowing our children and grandchildren to pay for the things that they want to have now. The average individual does not “feel” this occurrence because their tax bill does not grow dramatically in the current year. But it should be understood that the government has already spent your tax money (and that of your children) for many years into the future, and they will continue to add to the amount between now and then. Simply put, an increasing national debt and a government which is unwilling to stop spending means that our future tax rates (and those of our children) must be driven higher than they are today.

Thomas Jefferson suggested a unique approach to this problem. Jefferson believed strongly that any new government debt should be paid off by current taxpayers, so as not to burden the next generation. He favored limiting any government debt terms to nineteen years – precisely to keep the repayment in the generation which enjoyed the benefits. What a brilliant idea! If only we had adhered to that concept after Jefferson proposed it!

To get an idea of the history of our national debt, consider these milestones:

· Late 1700’s – the national debt was $83 million, primarily due to funding of the Revolutionary War
· 1801 – Jefferson elected President, vowed to reduce the debt
· At the end of Jefferson’s terms, the debt was reduced to $57 million
· The War of 1812 – debt rose to $127 million
· Andrew Jackson campaigned on a platform of eliminating the debt, elected President in 1829
· Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835 – the government ran a surplus of $440,000 that year
· Small financial panics and wars drove the debt back up to $63 million by 1848
· Under President Abraham Lincoln, due to the financing of the Civil War, the debt rose to an astounding $2.8 billion
· Today, the national debt exceeds $10.6 trillion (visit the national debt clock to watch it grow)

Unlike private individuals who have an obligation to repay their debts, politicians have no personal responsibility to do so. They spend other people’s money and go into debt with the obligation resting on other people’s children. And not just politicians – those private individuals who today beg their congressmen to deliver a rescue plan at the detriment of future generations are just as complicit. We are quickly becoming a nation who would mortgage the future of our own children for the comfort and pleasure of whatever we can have today. Most people would say that a parent behaving this way is a poor provider. It is no different with the government. If you think that there are some special protections or safeties in allowing our nation’s leaders to follow this path, while knowing that any private individual would be headed for disaster under the same rules - think again.

Next article: What is the Sixteenth Amendment about? How did it forever change the issue of states’ rights? What would the founding fathers have thought? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – States’ Rights (Part 2)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

In a recent news article, we see the state of California making clear its desire to self-impose tougher auto emissions standards than are called for by the federal government. The current president is mulling this over (the former president rejected it), while several other states are joining California in suing the federal government for not allowing the state to implement this law.

If you know anything about the Constitution and the original vision of the founders, you will see the incongruity of these stories with the ideals of our forefathers. The truth is that the original states were clearly separate from each other and largely independent of any federal restrictions. In fact, the founders’ vision was that power rested first with the individual, second with the state, and last at the federal level. Each state legislature wielded a great deal of power and independent decision-making ability. If this seems strange, consider this. Before 1913, United States senators were not elected. Instead, they were appointed by each state legislature (see the original Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution), with the intent that they would vote along lines set by each legislature. U.S. senators were not given a very long leash to vote as they wished, because they ran the risk of being removed by the state. Their power derived from the state, which was itself made up of individuals who were fiercely loyal (and uniquely devoted) to their own state. This system of states’ rights, curiously, is called federalism. The attitude behind federalism is still in evidence in many states, many of which still take pride in claiming to be the “Show Me” state or were “First in Flight”. If you live in one of these states, you probably know who you are.

This changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified by Connecticut, the last vote necessary to meet the Amendment criteria of thirty-six ratifying states. Specifically, the 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of U.S. senators every six years, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. If the distinction between the two systems is lost on you, consider this: a U.S. senator now has no direct responsibility to act or vote along the lines directed by his people back in the state. Instead, he or she is now inundated with federal programs that must be managed across many states, and is constantly competing for federal money which may come back to his or her state, so that jobs are “created”, the people are somewhat satisfied, and the senator can gain re-election. This serves to vastly increase the role of the federal government in our everyday lives, while reducing the power and independence of the states. And this is evidenced in today’s headlines when the President is deciding whether or not to allow a state to enact more stringent guidelines than the federal government requires.

Just to state my point of view for a moment, I believe the states should be allowed to make all such decisions, on their own, without interference from the federal government. Montana should be free to set their highway speed limit wherever they like without the threat of the federal government refusing highway improvement money. In fact, they should take all of that federal tax money slated for highway improvements and give it back to the individual who paid it originally. If the state wants to enact a highway improvement, then let them do so through their own legislature, and the votes of the people. Why does the federal government take money from the taxpayer, only to distribute it back to the states? Such a system is inefficient and extremely subject to corruption.

As an example of the way things used to work before the 17th Amendment, consider the case of John Quincy Adams in 1809. His state legislature of Massachusetts made their mind known to him regarding a piece of trade embargo legislation, and instructed him to vote against the motion. He was not of this opinion, and so resigned his seat, rather than oppose his state lawmakers. Similarly, when President Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for posturing against the federal bank, seven U.S. senators resigned their post, rather than vote to remove the censure as their legislatures recommended. Can you imagine a senator doing this today? No, today our senators openly rally for campaign funds in other states and foreign countries, making them more open to corruption than ever.

James Madison had it right in Federalist #45 when he said, “each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence”, and in Federalist #46 that the federal government will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” Indeed, the Constitution itself was not ratified as a kind of “national” effort. It was studied, weighed and voted upon by individual states – each of which had differing overall opinions and discussions.

It’s important to understand how our government differs today from how the founders envisioned it. Perhaps it’s time to consider a repeal of an amendment or two. Frank Chodorov, author of The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, perhaps said it best when he stated, “The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913.”

Next article: Is it okay for the government to go into debt? Is it constitutional? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Presidential Power (Part 1)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

As a nation, we pay an incredible amount of attention to the election of our presidents. If you’re not sufficiently tired of the election cycle that ended only a couple of months ago, fear not – it will all start again in about two-and-a-half years. It seems to be the ultimate reality show, made for television.

Already, the newspapers and other media outlets are looking to our new President to single-handedly solve the perceived problems in our nation. If you were an alien just landing on earth and you happened to drop in front of a television, you would think that the President has the power to do anything, fix anything, and change anything. He seems to be larger-than-life and is credited with far more wisdom than any other person in our land.

Similarly, whenever there is a question of right and wrong that is not adequately resolved between men or institutions, we are content to run to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter for any issue. Again, to an outsider it would seem that the nine justices of the Court possess such vast wisdom that no problem is too hard to tackle. And we let them get away with wielding this power. But between the President and the Supreme Court, are we correct in assigning them this amount of authority?

Article II of the Constitution contains four distinct sections which describe the duties and limits of the President. The specific authority given to the President includes: Commander in Chief of the military, authority over other members of the Executive branch, the power to grant reprieves and pardons, the ability to make treaties (with congressional approval), the power to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and the authority to appoint Senate vacancies during recess periods. His duties include: making a State of the Union address, he may convene or adjourn both Houses as necessary, receive ambassadors, commission officers, and “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. That’s all – there is nothing more in the Constitution to define the power or duties of the office of President.

The power and duties of Supreme Court justices are vague indeed – see Article III. They have authority to hear cases deemed to be of a federal nature, and they have the ability to exercise “appellate jurisdiction”, meaning they can review state-level cases that are deemed necessary to review. Beyond that, little is said about their role.

To properly interpret the relationship between the three different branches of government, one should look to the words of the founding fathers, who clearly meant for checks and balances to exist. Their greatest fear was the rebirth of a monarchy like the one they had fled in England. They did not want their President to be a king, nor did they intend for nine judges (originally six), appointed for life, to singlehandedly interpret the Constitution and wield it over the people. Rather, the founders issued countless letters ensuring that power stayed with the people, in their respective states.

To give an example, consider the presidency of Andrew Jackson. During his term, he was committed to the dissolution of the United States Bank, and argued vehemently for its demise. He sparred with Justice John Marshall during this time, and their argument included the topic of constitutional authority. Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the ultimate decider on what is constitutional and what is not. Jackson found this outrageous, and said,

“To this conclusion I cannot assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both” (see http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/bank/jackson.htm for further details).

These are tremendously important words, and very different from the behavior we witness today. Jackson understood that no single branch of government had overarching constitutional authority. There are many examples in early America of states ignoring the laws handed down by federal officials (including the President) because, simply put, it was understood that state’s rights were sovereign. That little fact was the original construct of our government….and it’s been forgotten.

Next article: States’ rights versus central government rights, and the curse of the Seventeenth Amendment. Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum

As a homeschooling father, I am always looking for ways to teach my three kids a unique, but true, perspective of any subject. I take it as a personal challenge to ensure that I research topics and understand them thoroughly before attempting to pass on any learning. This does require quite a bit of time, and sometimes I wish I had more time to pursue other interests like golf or restoring an old car. But right now, at this stage of my life, nothing is more important than impressing true, meaningful knowledge and wisdom on these three children living in my house.

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most important documents ever created, and likely affects those of us who live in the United States more than any other single paper written entirely by men. It is one of the few mandatory subject requirements handed down by our state board of education. I wonder – how many people have read the Constitution? Do our public schools require the reading of the document, or do they only present the subjective interpretation of what the Constitution means? I have decided this: my children are going to read the Constitution and are going to understand what it means. And I intend to teach them how it can become distorted in our country and in our government so greatly that the principles contained within that document are almost unrecognizable today. Finally, I intend to instruct them on how they can have an effect to reverse this trend in their lifetime.

To this end, I am starting a nine-part series on the Constitution, what was meant in the words that the founding fathers laid out, and how it is interpreted today. I have read several books lately that have helped tremendously on this topic – most notably by David McCullough and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. In the coming weeks, you should expect to read the truth about topics such as (click on the highlighted text to go directly to the article):

1. Does the Constitution give the President as much power as we seem to think? What about the Supreme Court? Are the nine justices that sit on the court really invested with the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to our freedoms?

2. What was the purpose of the Constitution in regards to states' rights versus central government rights? What did the framers intend in regard to this power struggle? Was the Constitution approved as a nation? How does the Seventeenth Amendment affect this?

3. Is government debt really okay? What are the pros and cons? Is it constitutional for the government to go into debt?

4. What happened to states' rights when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified?

5. What are the concepts of secession and nullification about? And was Abraham Lincoln really a good president?

6. What are “enumerated powers” versus “implied powers” in the Constitution?

7. What happened to my money when the Federal Reserve Act became law in 1913?

8. What is the “General Welfare Clause” and should I like it?

9. What brought about the birth of “judicial activism”? Was this interpretation intended by the founding fathers?

Consider this to be curriculum suitable for using with your own children – all for free. Two installments per week will be posted, ending in early March. When the series is completed, I’ll put together an official question and answer key that homeschooling families can use. Until then, feel free to share these postings with your children and discuss the overall principles behind some very meaningful Constitutional principles. There will easily be enough material here to count as a quarter’s credit in government.