Why? Because he valued the Constitution, and passing laws through the proper channels. Both of these previous emancipation orders circumvented the Constitution. President Lincoln revoked them because they were unconstitutional. The Constitution protected slavery. Therefore slaves could not be emancipated in the border states without a constitutional amendment. The thirteenth amendment constitutionally ended slavery in the states.
In my second blog post, I outlined what the Founders intended the Constitution to be. It was to outline the form and function of government; limit democratic power to the educated, with the intention that democracy would expand with education; separate both power and representation among the branches of government; separate power between the national government and the state governments; limit government and protect the rights of the people. I also emphasized that the United States is not a pure democracy.
In my third blog post, I expanded upon this. I taught that pure democracy is "majority rules". Pure democracy enslaves the minorities. It is the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, which protects the minority.
I further pointed out that refusal to uphold a constitution in any nation results in the dissolution of the balance of powers, and the collapse of that nation.
I expressed my opinion that the Constitution is divinely inspired, given by God to the minds of the Founders. I reconciled this belief with the belief that the Constitution is "imperfect" or "flawed".
Now, in this fourth and final blog post, I wish to discuss what all of this means to us, as American citizens, today.
Today, the Constitution is under attack. How? By the usurping of powers.
Let me explain.
The Constitution determines the form and function of government, and then defines the powers of each branch of government. Those who study the Constitution separate these powers into two types: express powers and implicit powers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what those mean. Express powers are those expressly stated in the Constitution. Examples of express powers are: the Senate has sole power over impeachments and treaties, the House determines the budget for the government, all of Congress has the power to regulate commerce, the President is Commander-in-Chief, and the Supreme Court has power to rule on cases related to treaties, controversies between states, and between individuals and states.
Implicit powers are powers that are not expressly stated in the Constitution, but are implied; either because of the phrasing used, or due to the understanding of what the Founders intended. A knowledge of the history, culture, and understanding of the Founders, and the historical precedence they lived under, is essential to understanding if something is an actual implicit power; or if it is something a politician made up to get away with doing something unconstitutional. Examples of implicit powers are emergency war powers (used first by Lincoln), executive orders (with the exception of William Henry Harrison, used by every president beginning with George Washington), and judicial review by the Supreme Court.
The necessary and proper clause, also known as the elastic clause, states "The Congress shall have Power ... 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." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18).
Basically this means:
1. In the previous sections we've outlined the powers of Congress.
2. If anything prevents you from exercising these powers the way you should, then you have the power to make additional laws to make your job easier.
It DOES NOT mean "Congress can do whatever the heck they want, as long as they SAY it is necessary and proper." Which, unfortunately, is how it has been interpreted far too often.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In summary, if a power isn't an express or an implicit power (as defined above) of the federal government, that power is reserved to the states. This is called a reserved power or a residual power.
The Constitution is under attack because, throughout the history of the United States, politicians have usurped their power. This means they have done things that the Constitution does not give them power to do; they have stretched the definitions of these powers. As I stated before, Congress has used the necessary and proper clause at times to usurp power, by passing laws that are not actually necessary, nor proper.
The President's duty is to execute the laws enacted by Congress. If there is ambiguity in how these laws should be enacted or something preventing the law from being executed, the President can issue an executive order to either clarify the ambiguity or remove the obstacle preventing the law from being executed. executive orders are not as binding as laws; laws must be repealed by a majority vote in Congress, whereas executive orders can be repealed by any subsequent president after the president who issued the order.
Executive orders, though not inherently unconstitutional, have been used by presidents to usurp their power. For example, although The Indian Removal Act of 1830 allowed the US Government to offer lands west of the Mississippi to Native Americans in exchange for lands within existing states, Andrew Jackson used an executive order to force the Natives to leave. This was known as the Trail of Tears, and was unconstitutional. (In fact, the Supreme Court at the time declared it unconstitutional, but Andrew Jackson ignored them).
The first 15 presidents (before Lincoln) averaged 7.3 executive orders. The past 12 presidents (since FDR) have averaged 350 executive orders. FDR issued 3,522 executive orders! That's an average of almost 300 a year! The majority of them were unconstitutional: he completely ignored the existence of Congress, and basically passed whatever "laws" he wanted. One of these unconstitutional executive orders was Executive Order 9066, which ordered that Japanese-American citizens be imprisoned in internment camps during World War II.
The Constitution is under attack by usurpation of power through unconstitutional executive orders.
The Federal government has also usurped their power by taking control of reserved powers. There are many that believe that abortion, gay marriage, and the mediation of healthcare are rights reserved for the states. They do not seem to fall under any of the powers, express or implicit, of Congress. And yet, Congress has passed laws dealing with these issues; and the Supreme Court has ruled in regard to these things.
Just to clarify, unconstitutional means "not in accordance with the constitution". It does not mean "not in accordance with my opinions", nor "not in accordance with what is right". Quite frequently these days people hear of legislation they don't like and they scream, "That's unconstitutional!" When they really mean "I don't like that." For example, it is definitely NOT right to own slaves; however, the Constitution originally protected the right to own slaves. So pro-slavery legislation would NOT be unconstitutional; it would just be wrong.
And this is another way that the Constitution is under attack.
The Supreme Court in recent years has declared things "unconstitutional" or "constitutional" when, in reality, they have nothing to do with the Constitution. They are using the word to mean "something we don't like" instead of "something not in accordance with the Constitution". The Supreme Court has also usurped their power by legislating law. There duty is to uphold laws that are unconstitutional, or to overturn laws that are unconstitutional, but they ARE NOT supposed to make laws. Which is what they have virtually done in regards to gay marriage.
It is important to remember that just because a law should be enacted doesn't mean that it is ok to enact it unconstitutionally. As Martin Luther King, Jr. states in his Letter from Birmingham Jail "it it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends."
Even if your intentions are pure, even if what you are doing is good, it is wrong for a politician to usurp power, and ignore the Constitution. This is why I have no respect for FDR.
To put it in a nutshell, the Constitution is under attack:
1. By Congress, who usurp power by misusing the "necessary and proper" clause.
2. Presidents, who usurp power by unconstitutional executive orders.
3. The Supreme Court, who usurps powers by losing using the word "unconstitutional" and by virtually legislating law.
All of this is harmful because it undermines democracy, hurts states rights, and ultimately leads to chaos. The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2). Lincoln asserted "we must enforce all laws of the United States, lest anarchy ensue". When the Constitution is ignored, and laws/orders/rulings are made by circumventing the Constitution, the supreme law of the land is held at naught, and (if not stopped) this will eventually lead to the collapse of our nation as we know it.
A constitutionalist is someone who upholds the Constitution. They accept it as the Supreme law of the land. They believe that it should never be circumvented, but properly amended, if necessity calls for it.
People who are not constitutionalist believe that the Constitution is "subject to interpretation", which basically means "whatever interpretation is convenient for me as a politician at this point in time".
In my opinion, the word constitutionalist should not exist!. The very existence of the word means that there is such things as a non-constitutionalist; necessitating the need for distinction between the two.
Every politician and every citizen should be a constitutionalist.
We need more constitutionalist in government. But, more importantly, we need more constitutionalist citizens. Will you be a constitutionalist, and stand with me? Will you, as a citizen, hold your legislature accountable to upholding and protecting the Constitution?
**THIS ARTICLE IS PART OF A FOUR-PART SERIES**
No comments:
Post a Comment