Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Constitution a Republican Plot?
National Review Online ^ | May 25, 2012 | Michael G. Franc

Posted on 05/25/2012 2:04:22 PM PDT by neverdem

It’s one of the clearest, easiest-to-understand provisions in the Constitution. And Harry Reid’s Senate flouts it routinely.

The Origination Clause in Article I, Section 7 states: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” In addition to clarity, this provision has an even greater virtue: It serves a very good purpose.

The Founding Fathers required revenue measures to originate in the House because they wanted this authority to belong to the legislative body closest to the people. Plus, the Framers wanted the larger states to enjoy the most influence on matters of taxing and spending, which is the case in the House (whose seats are allocated according to population) but not the Senate (where each state gets two seats regardless of population and smaller states have outsized influence). “This power over the purse,” James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58, “may, in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has taken to thumbing his nose at this clear mandate. Recently, he publicly dismissed the Origination Clause as a “hyper-technical budget issue,” raised by his Republican opponents as “a fig leaf to hide their blatant obstruction.” The matter arose as Reid orchestrated a high-profile Senate floor debate on the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, prior to House consideration of this or any other revenue bill. Also known as the “Buffett Rule,” the Senate measure would impose a hefty new tax on millionaires.

Aware that the Republican House would no more propose new, economically debilitating taxes than Warren Buffett would voluntarily follow the rule that bears his name, Reid opted to move unilaterally. Why let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of making sure a red-meat, eat-the-rich proposal like this gets maximum media exposure during an election year?

It does not stop there. In its version of the legislation extending federal price controls on student loans, the Senate included a hefty tax increase — again absent the requisite House action. Then there is the Violence against Women Act, which contains a new $30 fee for immigrant visas, another Senate revenue provision that violates the Origination Clause. When House leaders uncovered this constitutional infirmity, they quickly issued a “blue slip” notification, effectively killing it.

Remarkably, as Congressional Quarterly reported, the House move “blindsided” the many constitutional illiterates in the Senate. One unnamed Senate staffer even speculated that the House’s fealty to the Constitution “may be part of some Republican plan.” This is all in keeping with how the leftist intelligentsia has viewed previous efforts to ignore the Origination Clause. The New York Times characterized one such mishap as an “arcane parliamentary mistake” the enforcement of which was designed “to block . . . everything else Mr. Reid is hoping to accomplish,” while The Washington Monthly termed it “a Democratic procedural slip-up.” As Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor at Florida International University’s School of Law and author of the excellent new intellectual history of the tea-party movement (The Tea Party: Three Principles), puts it: “Nowhere in these statements is there recognition that the holdup was constitutional rather than political.”

There is a constitutionally permissible way for the Senate to make its voice heard on revenue measures. Under widely accepted precedent, the Senate could take up House-passed tax bills, amend them, and then send the amended legislation back to the House for further consideration.

In her book, Foley lists fealty to the original meaning of the Constitution — originalism — as one of the three principles that animate the tea-party movement. Little wonder. Liberal Senate leaders, it seems, are determined to do what they want when they want to do it, Constitution or no Constitution. Even unambiguous constitutional requirements such as the Origination Clause are seen, as Foley puts it, as outdated nuisances that have no business standing in the way of today’s politically inspired “messaging” opportunities.

One of the chief operational principles of the current Senate seems to be, to paraphrase that famous line from Treasure of the Sierra Madre: “Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!” That’s one more reason why the tea-party movement remains politically relevant more than three years after its birth.

— Michael G. Franc is vice president for government studies at the Heritage Foundation.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
Besides all of this unconstitutional crap, new senators from the November 2006 election haven't voted for a budget in three years, and they all voted for Obamacare! They know they're in trouble. Webb from VA won in 2006. He decided not to try for a second term. Six other rat senators decided to join Webb in retirement.
1 posted on 05/25/2012 2:04:26 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Is The Constitution a Republican Plot?


Reality is a Republican Plot too, but that's another story.

2 posted on 05/25/2012 2:06:58 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


3 posted on 05/25/2012 2:14:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Oh come on, the Constitution is 225 years old and that is a lot of living and breathing!

When they said "House of Representatives" they really meant Washington politicians in charge.

It's just like the 2 amendment, it's meant for a militia, not the people.

Boy, if we took the Constitution literally like the VRWC wants it, we would still be at war with England going to the outhouse several times a day!

4 posted on 05/25/2012 2:25:00 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom


5 posted on 05/25/2012 2:27:04 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem senators from the November 2006 election haven't voted for a budget in three years,...

Well, they try but BIG BAD and ruthless John Boehner keeps using his wit and savvy and compassionless drive to stifle the majority in the senate!


6 posted on 05/25/2012 2:31:36 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The ‘amendment as a substitute’ is such an established prededent the flouting of it must be intentional.

One wonders what benefit the Dems expect the media to give them among the lowIQ class for doing this.
Just a chance to falsely cry ‘obstructionist’ doesn’t seem sufficient.
Though if the Constitution is an object of disdain any benefit from injuring it is a plus.

7 posted on 05/25/2012 2:32:25 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It is not a "Republican" plot, but it is a carefully-designed plan to stop wannabe petty tyrants from seizing the powers of government and trampling on "the People's" rights and liberties.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Will The Great American Experiment Succeed?

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, enumerated what he called 'the essential principles of our government. . . which ought to shape its Administration.'

He then stated:

"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."


When asked by a curious citizen after the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been structured by the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin is said to have answered: "...A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."

The extensive Constitutional republic they envisioned, in reality, became a place of liberty and opportunity for countless millions of people from all over the world. Their ideas work­ed, because they were based on enduring principles which recognized human imperfection and the need to structure a limited government of laws, dependent upon the consent of a people who, themselves, understood the principles.

The Distinctiveness of the American Experiment as Laid Down by the Founding Fathers:

What Has Happened to the Philosophy and Principles Held by the Founding Fathers?

Have we kept faith with their ideas of republican (represen­tative) government and of the virtue which must underlie such an institution? As Andrew Jackson observed: "It is well known that there have always been those amongst us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general govern­ overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution." Such is certainly true in 20th Century America! Not only do the various branches of government seek ways to expand their power by changing the Constitu­tion, but there are well - organized and heavily-funded organi­zations actively at work to make serious changes in the Founders' system.

Can America Lose Her Freedom?

An examination of the history of civilization reveals that nations have risen, and they have fallen. Governments have been formed, and they have been dissolved. People have become free, and they have fallen into slavery again. Toynbee observed that 19 of the world's 21 significant civilizations disappeared from the face of the earth - not from assault by outside forces, but from deterioration within the society.

Many would contend that America has departed from the intentions of its Founders in a number of significant ways. Others, whose judgments are less categorical, at least would acknowledge that there are valid reasons for such a judgment.

Some Major Departures From The Original
Philosophy, Principles And Intent Of The
Framers Of Our Constitution:

Through liberal judicial interpretations of the necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses, as well as the commerce clause, the national government has gained sufficient power to intrude into virtually all concerns and areas which were originally intended to be within the domain of the states (See: Part V, Federalism). What is more, the courts, through the process of 'selec­tive incorporation,' have used the Fourteenth Amend­ment to nationalize and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Various Amendments have also served to weaken the state governments, albeit indirectly. For instance: the Sixteenth Amendment, through its provision for federal income tax, has made the states, to a great extent, dependent on the national government. The Seventeenth Amendment, which changed the Framers' intent as to the manner in which the Senate would he determined, has served to reduce the influence and balance of state interests in the na­tional councils.

The Framers believed that it would be the Legislative branch, armed with the most important powers of govern­ment, which would pose the greatest danger to the separa­tion of powers. For this reason, they divided the legislature into two houses and strengthened the Executive and judiciary branches. Over time, however, the Congress has delegated much of its authority to the Executive branch or to independent regulatory bodies. On the other hand, the judiciary, which the Founders believed to be the weakest of the branches, has asserted the doctrine of judicial supremacy-that its interpretation of the Con­stitution is authoritative and binding on the other bran­ches (an idea clearly not held by Jefferson, Madison and others). In addition, the courts have in fact 'legislated' to bring about changes which they contend are mandated by their interpretation of the Constitution (See: Part V, Separation of Powers). These "positive resolutions" on the part of the courts are seen to run counter to the Founders' idea of representative (republican) government, because they represent a usurpation of the legislative function, and ignore the voice and consent of the people through their elected representatives. This bypasses the slow and deliberative amendment process provided by the Constitu­tion for making changes to that document.

Although the word "rights" remains an important part of the political and social vocabulary, the perception that individual rights are of divine origin has been largely excluded from public discourse. What was once the very cornerstone of the philosophy of freedom expounded by the Declaration of Independence-that a Creator endow­ed human beings with rights and the liberty to enjoy those rights - has virtually disappeared from the textbooks of the nation and from the public statements of many leaders. Indeed, rights are now thought of as man-made and emanating from government. As such, the concept of rights not only has been secularized but trivialized as well. After all, what is the authority for such rights? Any self-proclaimed entitlement to special treatment, privilege, status, or benefit conferred by government can, by inference, be withdrawn. Moreover, the modem no­tion of man-made rights does not embody the natural law injunction that the exercise of a right embodies a corresponding obligation to observe the rights of others, nor does it recognize the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" described by the Declaration of Independence.

In this connection, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights frequently have been interpreted in an arbitrary manner without regard to the tradition or values which they were designed to protect and preserve. For instance, the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been 'inter­preted' in a manner not in keeping with Jefferson's idea that the "liberty to worship our Creator" had been "pro­ved by our experience to be its [government's] best support." In this and other areas, rights are upheld quite apart from the Framers' concerns for civil or ordered liberty, or for the ends of government, especially those set forth in the Preamble. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's scathing critique of Western moral values, and those which have gained currency in the United States in particular, drives this point home:

"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror."

Professor Lino Graglia, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, makes much the same point in another context: "The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law-for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state ­ and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the at­tempt frequently seem not worthwhile...By undermining effective enforcement of the criminal law...the Court has diminished our liberty to walk the streets of our cities with a degree of security".

One of the primary concerns of the Founders was the establishment of a sound monetary system which would provide stability and would assure the citizens that govern­ment could not manipulate their currency and confiscate their earnings through inflation, a problem with all un­backed paper currencies of the past. By various legislative and judicial actions, United States citizens no longer possess a currency with its own intrinsic value. Unbridled government spending and debt plague the nation. Since the withdrawal of gold coins in 1933, the nation has experienced a cumulative inflation of over 821%.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...said John Adams. And Thomas Jefferson declared: "Whenever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government...The boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them."

Early generations of Americans were taught the principles upon which their nation had developed its Con­stitution. The Founders believed that the real security for liberty would be a people who could understand those ideas which are necessary to preserve liberty and who could perceive approaching threats to their freedom. For that reason, a primary purpose of the schools was to teach boys and girls to read and write so that they could study the ideas of freedom. A popular textbook for children was entitled "Catechism on the Constitution." Written by Arthur J. Stansbury and published in 1828, it contained questions and answers on the principles of the American political system.

Tocqueville's Democracy In America , written in the 1830's, described America's aggressive process of univer­sal education on the Constitution and the political process:

"It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where the in ­ struction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education ...." The American citizen, he said, "..will inform you what his rights are and by what means he exercises them .. In the United States, politics are the end and aim of education ... every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution .... it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon .... It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which thought cir ­ culates in the midst of these deserts [wilderness]. I do not think that so much intellectual activity exists in the most enlightened and populous districts of France."

Research shows that, beginning in the early 1900's, the teaching of the philosophy undergirding the Constitu­tion and the principles incorporated in it began to be eliminated from the public schools of America. Conse­quently, several generations of Americans have not been taught the principles which would enable them to be guardians of their own liberty, and they have not been able to serve as "watchmen on the walls" who could recognize encroachments when they occurred. Even most of the law schools do not train the nation's law students in the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.

It must be remembered that the principles of the Con­stitution and the philosophy undergirding those principles represent:

If the people do not have an understanding of these basic things, then they will be incapable of preserving them.

Does The Constitution Provide The
Means Of Recovering The Original Intent?

Without a doubt, those departures from the Framers' intent listed above, and others as well, result in serious questions about the ultimate success of their experiment. We should note, however, that the Framers built well, and the Constitution, despite the buffeting it has taken, is still extremely viable in one crucial respect: namely, the channels for restoration remain open. Nothing - not even Amendments - has altered the distribution of powers or the basic institutional relationships set forth by the Founders. This means, in effect, that the PEOPLE can operate through Congress to bring the system back into line. If the people, through knowledgeable, good judg­ment, select members of Congress who have the courage to act, the Founders' system can be restored.

A determined Congress, for instance, is more than a match for a judiciary bent upon advancing the doctrine of judicial supremacy and encroaching upon the Legislative prerogatives intended by the Founders. Such a Congress could, as it has done in the past, limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. The Senate could carefully screen presidential nominations to the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, and refuse to con, firm those who support judicial "activism." Or, at the ex­treme, Congress could impeach and remove those justices who, to use Alexander Hamilton's terminology, habitually exercise "will" (the intended prerogative of the Legislature), not "judgment," in interpreting the Constitu­tion. In sum, Congress is equipped with all the weapons to win any "shoot out" with the Court. In all likelihood, if history serves as any guide, the mere threat of their use would suffice to restore the proper relationships between the branches called for by the separation of powers principle.

Congress also possesses ample means to restore some semblance of balance with respect to state-national rela­tions. Much could be accomplished simply through legislation, or through a more discreet use of congressional powers to allow the states greater latitude. Congress could, probably through legislation (or amendment, if need be), assert the sole authority to enforce the "due process" and "equal protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation, thereby depriving the courts of the means to impose their will upon the states. This corrective measure would, by itself, go a long way toward restoring vitality to the federal principle, while simultaneously putting the judiciary back into its proper constitutional place.

While the Constitution provides the means of restora­tion, clearly the process is a difficult one.

What Is Necessary To Bring
About Such Restoration?

As demonstrated above, restoration of the Founders' formula for preserving liberty is, indeed, possible through the mechanisms provided by their Constitution. But what must take place in order for such restoration to occur?


Will There Be Restoration?

For the first time in many years, there are encouraging signs that some important changes may be emerging. Although the teaching and study of the Founders' ideas had virtually disappeared from the curriculum of the schools for many decades and partially, as a result, from public discussion, there is renewed enthusiasm and interest in those ideas among a vital and committed segment of the population. Some signs of this renewed emphasis on the ideas of liberty are:

These and other signs are encouraging, but, at best, are just the beginning of a long journey to rediscover the greatness of our Constitutional philosophy and principles and to redirect efforts in their proper restoration.

Will The Experiment Succeed?

It was John Adams who said: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." Clearly, the Founders' passion was liberty, and in order to secure that liberty, they sought out and incor­porated into the United States Constitution those ideas and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

The French historian, Guizot, once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American republic endure?" Lowell replied: "As long as the IDEAS of the men who founded it continue dominant"

Herein lies the answer to the question, "Will the Experiment Succeed?"

It can and will succeed IF the motivating "principle or passion in the minds of the people" is LIBERTY, and if that passion causes them to exert the determination and will to complete the needed restoration of the IDEAS upon which the great American experiment was based.

Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part VII:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

8 posted on 05/25/2012 2:54:04 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes. That’s why we live in a republic not in a democracy.

9 posted on 05/25/2012 3:08:26 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


10 posted on 05/25/2012 3:09:38 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (The best diplomat I know is a fully-activated phaser bank. - Montgomery Scott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson