101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates

National Center for Constitutional Studies ^ | Unknown | National Center for Constitutional Studies

[handk]

101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates

Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: "Do you think there is still time to turn it around?"

When you ask, "Still time before what?" they usually reply: "Before total disaster overtakes us!"

For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: "Yes, there is still time, but not much."

The next question is: "What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?"

The answer is: "Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings."

Identifying Constitutional Candidates

"But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?"

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.

However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the "Making of America" seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The eight hours required for this study (thirteen on audio or video tape) may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?

The founders said it is in the people "by God's own allowance." No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives.

2. In what way are "all men created equal?"

All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?

An inalienable right is one which comes as an "endowment from the Creator" and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the Founders mean by the "pursuit of happiness?"

This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?

The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence or one's job, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?

The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law," which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.

The American Structure of Government

9. What is a democracy?

A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?

A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?

Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people's elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?

Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

The Task of Controlling Power

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?

Government is "force" which Washington compared to "fire" and said government is a "dangerous servant" and a "fearful master." Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?

First of all, the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the state level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders' pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all.

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?

Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?

Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders' original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?

The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally "programmed" to death--and taxes have skyrocketed.

Separating Power Horizontally

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?

There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government "coordinated but never consolidated." This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?

The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.

Americans Experiment with Another System

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?

Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

21. What has caused this?

Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a "redistribution of the wealth" by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies "unconstitutional."

22. What has been the result?

These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples' earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or "collectivism" worked anywhere in the world?

Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as communism, nazism, and fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called "peaceful" forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor's edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?

They did it by setting up a "limited" form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the "chains" of the Constitution.

American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders' Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?

Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as "usurpation."

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?

Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?

Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was "tax, tax -- spend, spend -- elect, elect!"

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, "We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!"

The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to "soak the rich," but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a "New World Order"?

Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?

Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or secretary of state who has followed a policy of "interventionism," has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.

Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the Federal Register?

In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make "laws" for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?

This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

Judicial Violations of the Constitution

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?

This is called "judicial legislation." This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?

The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?

Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the states would have undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as "laws?"

No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called "administrative law." The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.

Blurring the Founders' Division of Labor Between
the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?

James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?

If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?

The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?

The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?

The Tenth Amendment

42. Then how did the government get so much power?

The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.

Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?

In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?

This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the "free flow" of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

Some Practical Questions

45. Doesn't the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?

No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders' original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?

No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn't even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

Questions About Money and the Budget

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the "Butler" case?

In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1996, the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than 1.6 trillion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?

Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

The National Debt

49. How much is the national debt today?

The U.S. National Debt is nearly five trillion dollars requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of all wars we have ever fought. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to eleven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?

The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?

The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation's inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

What About Welfare?

52. But hasn't much of our money been spent for welfare and other important social programs?

This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government's multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn't the government have to try to do something to help those in need?

The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?

The existence of a need on a state level does not create a power on the federal level. When a state fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.

The National Debt and Foreign Aid

55. In view of America's tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?

This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program, similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

Social Security

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?

The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as "payments" if he qualifies under the government's arbitrary poverty level.

[eccentric]

Far too complex for most candidates and voters. How about a simple question like "Do you know what the electoral college is?"

[bvw]

And by posting this ... you provided a needed benchmark. To preserve the Constution and founding concepts we need frequent reminders if what the Constitution is meant to be.

Such care for the good legacy handed us by the hard efforts and sacrifices of prior generations who looked forward with benevolence and hope towards our generation and generations to come ... that is the heart of Conservatism.

Thanks!

[King Prout]

the biggest BUMP I can issue

[King Prout]

martian Olympus Mons sized BUMP!

[Travis McGee]

BTTT!

[NittanyLion]

Good post.

[MeekOneGOP]

[King Prout]

ack... ep..ilep...ticsei..zure...ack!

dude.
ack!
ping your list.
ack!
my eyes!
ack!

[eeriegeno]

43. What was the Butler Case? In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

It seems to me, IMHO, that the second sentence of this answer is the root cause of where we are today.

Let me ask question #102: Is it constitutional to limit the term of elected representatives to one term? This was a popular issue a decade or so ago but has been lost in the arguments of abortion and gay marriages it seems........

[King Prout]

was it Alexis deTocqueville who said "the American republic shall endure only until the masses realize they can vote themselves government largesse" (or words to that effect)?

[inquest]

57. Is there a better way [than the current Social Security system]?

Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.

OK, they say at several points in this analysis that all federal programs that have no basis in the Constitution's grants of power are unconstitutional. But then they turn around and propose this idea. Where's the constitutional basis for any of this that they're talking about?

[inquest]

Is it constitutional to limit the term of elected representatives to one term?

No. The Constitution states that Congressmen are to be chosen by the people of each state, which means that those people are to have complete freedom of choice in determining who their representatives are, subject only to the limitations that the Constitution sets forth.

[King Prout]

you will note that the author does not state that it is the government's job to create the annuity program. the intent is for the taxpayer to have all the money stolen by the gov to use as he sees fit, and that a private annuity program would do a hella better job than SS benefits.

[inquest]

Well then he might have just come out and said that Social Security should be scrapped and let the private market take over. He certainly wasn't shy about saying that when it comes to welfare spending (see 52-54).

I mentioned this because many people have advocated that the government set up some kind of annuity system such as was described, thinking that they're being real conservative and constitutionalist by having that opinion. I see it a lot, and it blows my mind that nobody, even among constitutionalists, seems to have the ability to just flat-out say, Eliminate Social Security.

[MeekOneGOP]

ping your list.

Okay ...

101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

Autoresponder made that for me. Said it would be an eyecatcher bump.

Are you saying it does just that ?? ;^)

[jedi]

was it Alexis deTocqueville who said "the American republic shall endure only until the masses realize they can vote themselves government largesse" (or words to that effect)?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Alexander Tyler

[Iron Eagle]

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I only read this far, but here is an excellent stopping point. I will tell you what was told me by one of the great strict constructionist, Supreme Court Justices:

"The Declaration of Independence is a nice puff piece, but it is not the law!"

That is a direct quote to me in a room full of 30 members of the legal society called, the Thomas More Society. The quote was by Antonin Scalia.

in 30 years, I had never even thought about it. But, it is true, the Declaration of Independence, while a historically spectacular document, it has no legal meaning in the United States. (Obviously anything from it incorporated into the Constitution, has meaning, but the Document has no legal effect.)

[King Prout]

thank you!

[King Prout]

"Well then he might have just come out and said that..."

well, that was my take on that issue in the text, but I may have read into it what I myself believe... I elaborated based on the author's concluding remarks.
I could be wrong.