Time: Sun May 25 05:41:32 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA28037; Sun, 25 May 1997 04:56:17 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA23018; Sun, 25 May 1997 04:56:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 05:29:08 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: L&J: Constitution Column (fwd) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <snip> > >Constitution Column > >By Matt Erickson > >Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution for the United States of >America reads: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in >a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and >House of Representatives." > > The Constitution grants governmental powers into three separate >branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Article I covers the >legislative, Article II covers the executive, and Article III covers the >judicial. > >The legislative powers are the law-making power—the power to enact >laws. The legislative authority is specifically "granted" to Congress >(which was also created by this document). The signatories of the >contract were the States which later ratified it. I refer to the >Constitution being a contract even though some people point to the fact >that only one party signed it (those representing the principals—the >States). This is the only way this could be done, since this contract >created a new entity. Until the Constitution was ratified and the new >government set up, there were no officers in existence which could have >signed for the agent—the federal government. The potential problem of >only one party signing the contract is solved by an oath of office when >each new officer is sworn in, as this completes the contract (see >Article VI, Clause 3—both parties reaching agreement to specific terms). > >While Section 1 specifically states "All legislative Powers herein >granted shall be vested in a Congress", it should be understood to mean >"The legislative powers are granted herein, and shall be vested in >Congress..." The framers of the Constitution were masters of brevity, >and did not ramble on dealing with issues well understood in that day. >The idea that the President, executive agencies, government >corporations/independent establishments, or the Judiciary would attempt >to dictate life in America through executive orders, administrative >"law" codes, or judicial "interpretation" evidently didn't even register >with the Framers. None of these other entities have any legislative >power—no authority whatsoever to enact law or that treated as law. > >Congress passes laws according to the powers vested with it; the >Executive executes or puts into action that law; the Judicial branch >issues decisions to settle disagreements brought before it (issues and >rulings according to law). These are the core responsibilities of these >three branches. > >Article I, Section 1 states that Congress has all the legislative >authority and acknowledges that those powers are limited to those >granted within the Constitution. Congress has the legislative power >"vested" with it. Black's Law Dictionary defines "vested" as "fixed", >"settled", "absolute." This means that Congress could not even delegate >any of that authority elsewhere, since it is not within their >discretion—the power is fixed with it by a power not their own. > >The branch of government which writes the law is the most powerful >branch of government, as acknowledged by James Madison in The Federalist >#51; "In republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, >predominates." In that all three branches must be somewhat equal in >strength if they are to provide checks and balances with each other, >Congress is, in turn, subdivided into a Senate and House of >Representatives. > >The idea that Citizens elect their representatives who pass law >according to the powers vested with them is at the very core of the >republic. To attempt to not only bypass the Citizen but also their >Congressman to have executive agencies pass "regulations" which are >treated as law completely destroys the idea of a representative >government. > >To have the President pass Executive Orders or Presidential >Proclamations which are treated as law (other than the specific >Constitutional authority to do so, such as pardons—see Art. II:2:1) >likewise allows for a tyrannical monarchy, rather than Constitutional >Republic. > >The thought of taxation without representation made the framer's blood >boil to a point of revolution in 1776. Representation means having laws >passed by one's elected officials—Congressmen. It is not representation >to have the majority of that treated as law—regulations—enacted by >appointed bureaucrats within the executive branch. > >Article I, Section 2 covers the House of Representatives. Clause 1 of >that section states: >"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every >second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in >each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the >most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." > >Clauses are not actually numbered in the original Constitution. Some >people thus refer to them as Paragraphs, such as Article I, Section 2, >Paragraph 1. While this is allowable, I prefer to call them "Clauses," >as this is how the Constitution refers to them (see Article V). > >The Representatives were meant to be the more numerous branch elected >more often. This group was meant to be closer to the common man, to >represent his interests. An election every two years was the means used >for ensuring that the Representatives didn't venture far from the >voter's desires. > >The Representatives in the House are elected according to democratic >principles, with the elected Representative operating within a structure >that is federal. This means that within each State, the individual >meeting the qualifications and receiving the most votes wins the >office. The important differentiation with a pure democracy is that >while the mob rules on who becomes the office-holder, that office-holder >is bound to the rules of that office—he is not free to make any law he >desires. Since the office has limited powers which the office-holder is >powerless to expand (except by deception over an ignorant populace), one >has safety in a Republic even if the office-holder has >less-than-honorable intentions (the Constitution provides further >safeguards in that Congress may punish its members for disorderly >behavior, expel or even impeach a member—see Article I:5:2, Art. I:2:5, >& Art. 1:3:6,7). > >Clause 1 declares that Representatives shall be chosen by the "People of >the several States" but then goes on to qualify that "the Electors in >each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the >most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." At first glance, it >would appear that everyone who could qualify as one of the "People" >could elect the Representatives, but then one sees that there are >qualifications being imposed by the States as to who would qualify to be >an Elector. Most are readily familiar with some of the major >disqualification's of the time—being female, Negro, or Oriental. > >Each State was free to decide the qualifications of its voters for State >elections. This standard was then used to decide who could vote on >Representatives. The usual qualifications of the time period was that >one must be a free white male of 21 years with property. While this may >seem monstrously unjust to many people today, please realize that >limiting the vote to certain people will do little damage when the >topics of their vote, or the authority of those whom they elect, is >severely limited. > >Only when one seeks to expand upon the roles which government is to play >in our society does one need to seek moral justification through >universal suffrage. The rationale behind universal suffrage is that how >can one argue the outcome of any question when it was decided by a vote >of all the interested parties? > >It is far more important that the topic of the vote be limited than >simply that the voters not be limited. > >The Constitution mentions "the several States" in this clause. Many >patriots debate whether one should write "State" or "state" when >discussing the States of the Union. The main argument seems to be that >a small "s" signifies one of the States in their sovereign capacity as a >country within a federal framework—as one of the States of the Union. >"State" with a capital "s" is then to signify the corporate State, apart >from the state's constitutional authority. The corporate State would >have extra-constitutional authority, drawing upon the private right to >contract to gain powers. Most people entering into contract with the >corporate State would not realize the difference between the >Constitutional (limited/governmental) authority, and the corporate >(unlimited/non-governmental) authority. > >While I recognize the theory of this position, on things constitutional >I rely upon the Constitution to find the answer. On this subject, >whether talking of "the several States", "each State", "that State", >"the State", "any State", "one State", "a State", "another State", >"every State", in every case where State is mentioned in the >Constitution, it is likely that the corporate/constitutional authority >issue is not as simple as the spelling "State" with a small or capital >"s.".... > >Matt's Column will continue in the June issue of The Oregon Observer. >Available online at: >http://www.oregonobserver.com > > >-- >Patriot In Distress!! >http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/index.htm > >˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙ >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail