A Plea for Constitutional Literacy on this Constitution Day

Townhall.com ^ | September 17, 2014 | Dr Ben Carson

[Kaslin]

Earlier this summer, I managed to perplex, perhaps even offend, a famous TV interviewer when I declared I want a federal government that follows the U.S. Constitution. Seemingly aghast, the interviewer went so far as to suggest my position was a "highly charged thing to say."

Imagine that. A journalist -- who, owing to the Constitution, has the right to report and speak freely -- being uncomfortable with a fellow American's allegiance to the Constitution and to the Founding Fathers' vision of a limited central government.

I fear we as a nation have drifted too far away from an understanding and appreciation of the greatest governance document the world has ever produced. We have a president today who usurps power never given to him in the Constitution, a dysfunctional Congress so gridlocked that it can't fulfill its mission as a separate-but-equal branch of government, and a Fourth Estate of media elites who cheerlead for a bigger, more intrusive government that unnecessarily addicts those struggling to escape poverty to handouts, rather than encouraging self-reliance.

Let me be clear. Rightly sized and empowered, government serves an excellent purpose. Our Founding Fathers knew that and created a perfect vision for a republic of independent states protected and served by a central federal government with strong checks and balances. Those checks on powers were essential to the Framers, who established three equal but separate branches to ensure we always had a government "of the people, for the people and by the people," as Abraham Lincoln so wisely said.

But today we have people who are simply overgoverned -- subjected to taxation, regulation and intrusions by a massive federal government that our Founding Fathers never would have tolerated. It wants to control what we eat, how we live and even how much we can earn. It values political correctness over freedom, codependence over self-reliance, and redistribution of wealth over personal success.

That's why I said what I did that Sunday morning to that talk-show host. I told him I would love to have a government again that places the Constitution at the center of its mission, that recognizes government was never intended to intrude on every aspect of our lives. Everywhere I go in this great nation these days, I hear that same plea, from farmers in rural communities fearful the next federal regulation will put their generations-old family farm out of business, to shopkeepers suffocating under an unnecessarily high tax burden, to young people seemingly reconciled that their government will monitor, record and track their every movement.

How do we reverse this creeping despair that we have drifted too far away from our founding principles? It's simple. I think we must go back to the source of our great American experiment: the U.S. Constitution.

In little more than 4,500 words, the Framers created a vision of government that preserves liberty first and foremost and also serves the basic needs of a republic. For 200 years, that document has guided this great nation through dark times and soaring success. For most of our history, schoolchildren were taught the guiding principles of the Constitution from the earliest age, and even members of Congress with controversial civil rights histories such as the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia kept a copy of that great document in their jacket pockets to remind them of the responsibilities and limits of governance.

On this Constitution Day, a wonderful holiday created with bipartisan support just a few short years ago, let's recommit ourselves to rereading and appreciating our Constitution and to ensuring that our children and our children's children grow up with the same appreciation we were given. Familiarity with the greatest ideas ever created for preserving liberty will breed appreciation. Appreciation will help us all overcome the ignorant political correctness of a few media elites and governing officials who seem to dismiss the fundamental principles of a government that respects liberty first and foremost.

[Flintlock]

THIS is radical?

Lock and load, boys and girls.

[YouGoTexasGirl]

well said Dr. Carson!!

[Sherman Logan]

a dysfunctional Congress so gridlocked that it can't fulfill its mission as a separate-but-equal branch of government

I get so tired of this notion.

The branches of government are simply not equal. Congress, if united, has absolute power over the other two branches, up to and removing from office any judge or federal officer they choose, and prohibiting the courts from reviewing the constitutionality of specific laws.

Meanwhile, the judiciary and executive branches have strictly limited and temporary power over Congress.

Congress does not use its power, primarily because its members chief goal is re-election, and doing anything dramatic against the other two branched would be definition put that in peril.

But that doesn't mean the constitutional provisions establishing it cease to exist.

[USCG SimTech]

The left has decided that since they cannot change the Constitution, they instead have launched the attack on to the meaning of the words. Dilute the words, disconnect a vision of meaning from the original intent and re-attach a totally different meanings vision using the willing idiots that is the main stream media.

[SunshinesStormySummerSon]

I suggest you review the Constitutional checks and balances each branch has over the other two. The Framers were very clear: NO branch was ever intended to have “absolute” power. Perhaps, initially, the judicial branch may have seemed less powerful than the other two, but after Marbury v. Madison established the precedent of judicial review that perception was corrected.

[loveliberty2]

The following essay, reprinted with permission, reinforces Dr. Carson's comments:

Checks And Balances

The Constitutional Structure For 
Limited And Balanced
Government

---

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

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry, but I don’t buy it. The Founders intended the Congress to win any full out confrontation between branches. Possibly the term “absolute” was a step too far.

Congress can defund any executive action. It can remove from office any member of the executive branch. It can pass laws, and override a veto, limiting what the President can do.

Meanwhile, the President has only a conditional veto over any act of Congress, easily overridden by a united Congress. He has no power whatsoever over any member of Congress.

Congress can, as with executive officers, remove from office any judge it decides to. And it can define the areas over which the Courts have authority. (Admittedly this last has never been fully tested, so the limits of this power are unknown.)

IOW, a united Congress has something at least close to absolute power over the other two branches. Of course, Congress is rarely if ever as united as it needs to be to fully use these powers. Which means the power of Congress is checked and balanced more by internal factors than by powers granted by the Constitution to the other two branches.

[Jacquerie]

In short, congress could constitutionally reduce the entire federal court system to John Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.

In my constitutional daydream, a conservative congress and president disband the appellate courts, send the judges home and start over.

And somewhere along the line, these patriots ask the states to correct a hugh and series mistake, the 17th Amendment.

[Sherman Logan]

Yup. Just reread Article III, and Congress can do exactly that.

Interesting that judges are to remain in office as long as they show “good behavior.” This seems to be a lower standard for removal than the “high crimes and misdemeanours” for “civl officers” of the US.

Is a federal judge a “civil officer?”

[NorthMountain]

Name your favorite Fedzilla department, agency, whatever ...

Where does the Constitution authorize the Congress or the President to create it?

The answer is probably "nowhere".

[Jacquerie]

IIRC, the good behavior clause was written to accomplish two related things. (1) Judges serve for life (2) as long as they behave.

It would have been a bad idea to merely state that judges have life terms without consideration of the possibility they could commit some act the congress found worthy of removal.

As for the practical difference between good behavior and high crimes/misdemeanors I’m at a loss.

I do know that if congress booted a couple federal judges each year, it would do wonders for our freedom.

[Sherman Logan]

Yes, I’ve also long thought our system would work better if perhaps every fifth President had been impeached and removed from office.

Would at least cut down on the nonsense about coequal branches of government.

[Jacquerie]

For background on the blackrobe assault on our republic, my go-to reference is The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.

Your answer is correct, yet Scotus has used the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce clauses to horrible effect.

[RipSawyer]

Given a true rendering of what the constitution means rather than having judges find absurdities like Obamacare constitutional I would guess that ninety percent or more of federal expenditures would cease immediately. I have a really radical idea, why don’t we forbid anyone who has a law degree from serving as a judge? It would appear that the only reason for judges to go to law school is to learn how to obscure the true meaning of the constitution. We should certainly, at the very least, forbid lawyers from running for any elected office at any level.

[NorthMountain]

I have observed that our elected branches of government are increasingly populated by lawyers and professional politicians. I have further observed that the bureaucracy is increasingly populated by people who go straight from political science or public administration school into government jobs.

These are very bad developments.

[RipSawyer]

“These are very bad developments.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A strong statement but, in my honest opinion, still an UNDERstatement!