Posted on 11/27/2009 1:57:59 PM PST by loveliberty2
The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams.
Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
"If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.
Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.
"INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness." (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)
What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states' rights - another check the Founders provided.)
EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President's veto.
LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with constitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and J U DICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitutional Amendments.
LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.
It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. "To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them," said George Washington.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5, Reprinted 2008
Thus I apprehend, it is evident that the consolidation of the States into one national government (in contra- distinction from a confederacy) would be the necessary consequence of the establishment of the new constitution, and the intention of its framers-and that consequently the State sovereignties would be eventually annihilated, though the forms may long remain as expensive and burdensome remembrances of what they were in the days when (although laboring under many disadvantages) they emancipated this country from foreign tyranny, humbled the pride and tarnished the glory of royalty, and erected a triumphant standard to liberty and independence.
Antifederalist 39
The Articles of Confederation are an amazing read. So different in so many important ways from the Constitution. For example:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The key word there is “expressly.” This was one of the things the big government federalists wanted to do away with. Hamilton especially championed “implied powers.” By the time of McCulloch v Maryland, the federalists plan was on its way. You get rid of “expressly delegated powers” and replace them with “delegated powers.” You toss in a “necessary and proper” clause, and top it off with an unaccountable judiciary with supreme interpretive authority, and bingo—you’ve got your big gubmint. This stuff didn’t happen by accident.
Articles of Confederation, rat 1781
Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
If you want to post a reference, you should at least bother to read it...
Fortunately, our wise Framers and all thirteen state legislatures disagreed.
I cited an article that refutes your claim to state sovereignty. Sorry you are unable to support your previous post.
If you wish to comment, you should know your history.
Hamilton's was but one delegate and his plan was so roundly rejected that he left Philadelphia and hardly participated in the proceedings afterward. Washington spoke hardly a word throughout the entire convention.
The problem is that folks like Hamilton fought on after the convention and finally got what they wanted in the 1860s.
The main point being that if any of the states had not ratified the Constitution, they would not be part of the united States.
Some make good arguments that the Articles of Confederation are still in effect. It kinda depends on what you think “The United States” means. The Supreme Court has recognized three separate definitions of “The United States” in the insular decisions of the early 1900’s.
Hamilton wasn’t the only one. He was on the extreme edge of the big national government crowd, but clearly he had allies with names like Madison, Washington, Morris, etc.
You did no such thing. You limped along and tried to make an inference from the treaty making power.
And you’ve had multiple people post responses showing you were wrong.
Trust me, I probably have a WAY bigger library than you.
So we will agree to disagree. I’m fine with that.
There is not one government program of any size that has worked. We started the War on Poverty; we still got it at the same percentage. We have started the Great Society. None of these programs work, but we're not allowed to say that. We're not allowed to look at the results. We're supposed to look at the good intentions of the people who do them.
That's why I call the constitution a big government boondoggle. We are supposed to revere the "intent" of its creators, even though in practice it hasn't done what they promised it would do. Not even close.
Forget the INTENT of the Constitution. Look at the results.
Fair enough!
Actually, he was fairly central to the debates. And carried alot of weight with Washington.
I think he was somewhat behind the scenes hated by the non-federalists. Adams called him “the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler”, and Hamilton and Jefferson feuded much over national bank theory.
Here’s some more info on confederations re: sovereignty.
A confederation is an association of sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of their competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without however constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law, a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.
Thanks again.
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation further states, "No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, alliance whatever between them, without consent of the United States in Congress."
Yawn.
C'mon, you can admit it. The states weren't sovereign were they?
I’m not trying to diminish his role. I’m saying he was part of a crowd that wanted a strong national government, and, in my view, schemed to get it done. Madison, too. They skillfully laid the groundwork. They showed up early to Philly with the Virginia plan and set the terms of the debate. Sad that they prevailed. Liberty lasted about 8 years.
Barely. Jefferson went from free trade to protectionism as soon as a constituency asked him to. People petitioned Congress and state governments for monopolies, development funds, etc. almost immediately upon the founding. Washington got out easy.
This, though, is the reason for a small government: the natural inclination of human beings to self-serve/deal.
If government is proportionately small, the damage is minimized. The average person can almost understand this, but the counter argument - who’ll protect the little guy, watch out for the unscrupulous sounds so promising...
It is a hard sell to the modern products of government schooling.
I definitely would have been ANTI, and there's nothing sad about it. What's sad is that patriots signed on. Even Sam Adams, who was anti, eventually gave in.
DOA after seven years. Good riddance.
Well, the King of England said they were sovereign. And the Articles of Confederation said they were sovereign.
But Jokerie knows better.
OK. I give up.
Absolutely correct. Thanks progressives (communists).
Article IX of the Articles of Confederation: “The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of . . . regulating trade . . . “
Facts are stubborn things, eh? The states weren’t sovereign, were they?
Perhaps you should read some of the books gathering dust in your "WAY bigger library."
If you wish to comment, you should know your history.
I don't have the time right now to digest all of what you wrote (too much post-Thanksgiving house cleaning to do), but let me say this much:
The states didn't have the power to recall, but they had the power to not reappoint. That is practically the same thing.
We have mostly Senators-for-life today. I wonder how many states would not have reappointed their Senators today had the had the power.
-PJ
Name a better system of government.
By 1913 the 17th had already been effectively repealed. Around half, perhaps as many as 29, of the States required some type of a popular referendum for Senatoral candidates. More states were in the process of establishing such.
The various legislatures had the power of appointment but the laws of the states restricted appointees or mandated the candidates be chosen in popular voice. The legislatures had been relegated to brokers or a de facto electoral college in the process.
If we repeal the 17th there is no reason to suspect that the result would be any different. We would end with the 17th X 50.
And that is the precise point upon which we disagree.
The Constitution is not perfect to be sure but, when compared to any other such document ever written, it is at the top. Nothing else even comes close and that is why some have been ceaselessly working to undermine it from the very beginning.
If it had been strictly adhered to we would NOT be where we are but it wasn't and isn't simply because WE allow it!
1. Acknowledging the 13 colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;...
From: Treaty of Paris
Yup.
In fact there were arguments during the constitutional debates about how many states it would take. Would half be enough? Nine? Did it have to be unanimous? What about any states that failed to ratify.
It was agreed that IF A STATE FAILED TO RATIFY, it would be on it’s own. Basically an acknowledgment of the States individual sovereignties.
But some people don’t want to know...
they just want to be right.
“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to it in a Congress of the United States, and afterward confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”
Every state legislature eventually ratified the Constitution, in accordance with the existing form of government, the Articles of Confederation.
But some people don't want to know.
The 17th amendment took the choice away from the states altogether.
-PJ
Damn fine post.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The states were indeed sovereign and that fact was recognized by the King of England himself when he signed the Treaty of Paris.
I’ve been celibate since my first day.
Based on what criteria? I personally don't think it compares to the Articles of Confederation. I think the Swiss have a fine system, certainly no worse than ours. A true confederation that has survived since the 13th century. How do you measure such things? Forgive me, but that's just your national pride talking.
that is why some have been ceaselessly working to undermine it from the very beginning.
There has been no need to undermine it. THe document itself has provided the power and means for designing politicians to achieve their aims. They merely have to be patient and cunning and be sure the people are prepared, but even a dictator has to be mindful of such things.
If it had been strictly adhered to we would NOT be where we are but it wasn't and isn't simply because WE allow it!
By whose definition of "strict adherence"? The document itself gives the Supreme Court sole and final authority to decide what is and isn't "strict adherence." Can you not see what a fatal flaw that is?
As for the people, they have made wrong move after wrong move, starting around 1787.
Thanks very much for the ping. A fascinating & educational thread. Thanks to every poster. BTTT!
A sovereign state can make treaties, regulate the value of coin money and regulate their trade. The individual states of the United States under the Articles of Confederation could not do these things.
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Professional politicians are the cause of the decline of this country.
Whatever shortcomings any one or group of us may see from 200 years later, we must ask ourselves whether we have done as much to preserve liberty in our time.
For over two hundred years, millions fled other countries to come to America for opportunity and freedom. Had each generation seen to it that their children and grandchildren understood the great principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, perhaps the erosions might not have occurred.
Each generation must do what it can do.
If you have not already done so, perhaps John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address, recounting development of the ideas incorporated into the Constitution, and written after only 50 years into its existence, will cause this thread to be even more meaningful. Remember, JQA was 9 years old when his father so passionately urged the adoption of the Declaration, 20 years old when the Constitution was framed, and served in many posts, including that of President of the United States.
As you will see, he was "Invited by the New York Historical Socity to deliver An Address in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the INAUGURATION OF GEORGE WASHINGTON as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789."
________________________________________ Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1839, by JOSEPH BLUNT, For the New York Historical Society, In the District Court of the Southern District of New York." See
JQA's long NYC address is illuminating, for it comes from one close to the fountains of thought. Don't be intimidated by the length, for it is fascinating. He does provide a recap at the end, as follows:
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:- 1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs. 2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them. 3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. 4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth. 5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy. 6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority. 7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them. 8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution. 9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE. 10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years. 11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
Another informative 19th Century history, Richard Frothingham's 1881 600+-page "Rise of the Republic of the United States," provides insight into the development of the ideas of liberty and is now available on line.
Sadly, those who, today, see it as a "flawed" document, will not be persuaded, for their agenda is to "change" America from the "beacon of liberty" and prosperity it became under the Founders' Constitution to an oppressive European model the Founders discarded.
Thanks.
Would you agree that we need strict term limits to assure that our representation is not only accountable to the people, but must return to their positions among the people, and not become career politicians?
Sadly, we are seeing those consequences playing out before our eyes.
Exactly.. Republicans ignored the socialist takeover of academia to their demise.. The socialists and globalists have been brain washing their kids for decades.. The (unelected) State department has been a leftist sewer for a long time.. not to speak of teachers colleges and Unions.. Journalism has become realm of Propaganda Czars...
Russia has had and still has colleges teaching solely propaganda science..
which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
They gave important powers to Congress. The states were not sovereign.
As I explained to her Father, she will be taught eventually in Middle, High and University schools how rotten her country is, how the Constitution means little, and if it means anything it is a BS living and breathing document.
I want her to be able to confront the Radical Left at an early age.
Thanks again.
You are in denial an I won't waste any more time debating someone who argues with black and white proof that they are in error.
That confederation lasted twelve years and was ready to dissolve when saved by the Philadelphia convention.
I think the Swiss have a fine system, certainly no worse than ours.
It works for the Swiss but is very nearly a direct democracy. Something neither the founders nor I want anything at all to do with.
The document itself gives the Supreme Court sole and final authority to decide what is and isn't "strict adherence."
Would you be so kind as to point out the exact section of the Constitution that grants SCOTUS that power? I can't seem to find it in my copy.
Yawn. Let me know when you can face the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.