What the US Constitution is really about

Among all the other rubbish to be heard in the MSM, certain errors stand out wth regard to the US Constitution. 

One of them is the statement that since the constitution forbids "an establishment of religion," citizens should not include someone's religion among the factors that influence a decision with regard to choosing a candidate.

Another old saw, this one much favored by Democrats is to imply that the phrase "to form a more perfect union" was intended to set the stage for an effort to create an earthly paradise.

Both of these thing are wrong.

The framers of the constitution sought to create a federal government that would function more effectively and efficiently.  That is what they meant by "a more perfect union."  Read about the drafting of the document.  All will be made clear.

As for the establishment clause, the phrase must be understood in the context of the purpose of the whole document.

The US Constitution is about the structure, powers and lack of powers of the federal government and eventually through various amendments, the powers and limitations of the state governments.  Everything in the constitution deals with government, what it may do and what it may not do.  Where the line of demarcation between these two things lies has been and will continue to be the business of endless amendment and litigation.

Some things in the constitution appear, at first consideration, to be concerned with the behavior of individuals but on closer examination, they are not.

Examples:

- The 14th Amendment gurantees equal rights before the law across the union.  The impression is that the amendment itself forbade people engaged in business from discrimination on the basis of  race, religion, etc. In fact this amendment required the federal and then the state governments to create law to implement the amendment.  The amendment itself does not directly affect individuals.

- The 16th Amendment allowed the federal government to enact law establishing an income tax on individuals.  By implication it allowed states to do the same thing. Some have and some have not.

- The 2nd Amendment established a basic right among the citizenry for individuals to own and bear arms.  SCOTUS has recently ruled that all governments have a very limited (still unsettled as to extent) ability to interfere with that right.

- The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and religion.  These provisions are all limits on the power of government to control individual behavior.

- Article Six clearly states that there shall never be "a religious test for office" under the US Government.

Nothing in Article Six or the 1st Amendment forbids a citizen casting his or her vote on the basis of religion or voting against someone on the basis of religion or any other basis. race, etc.  Let's be careful about what we say concerning things like this.  You may be unhappy that someone would vote on the basis of religion (as would I) but you do not have the constitution behind you in asserting or implying that such behavior is somehow illegitimate.  pl

 

 

 

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

Issues of federalism and roles of the STATEs and their local governments plague the government at all levels. Unfortunately SCOTUS has been no help in consturing issues of federalism including discussion of the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses and discussion of federal preemption. The most recent example of course is the ObamaCare decision by SCOTUS.

More disturbing perhaps is the increased liklihood of judicial interference in federal elections because of the BUSH v. Gore SCOTUS decision in 2000!

In fact and law the Presidential election process is 50 separate and highly individual STATE elections not one federal election. Example, Voter ID!

A major tragedylurks someday in the Electoral College!

Note that a third party candidate has arrived on the stage with results and impact on November election unknown and unknowable in advance. Note that IMO Perot elected Clinton twice. John ANDERSON elected Reagan!

[Matthew]

"A major tragedylurks someday in the Electoral College!"

I used to agree with this observation but no longer. Without the Electoral College, candidates could permanently campaign only in the big states. Why go to Wyoming or Montana? Campaign on the seaboards and saturate the major media markets.

With the electoral college, however, they may focus on "battleground states" like Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio. But every state can be a battleground state if its electorate swings in alternate elections. The citizenry establish their own relevance.

[William R. Cumming]

Actually Matthew IMO the MSM establish the revelance of the citzenry of any state as a derivative of out of state contributions to MSM buys. Perhaps wrong. I believe 4 Presidential candidates won the popular vote but lost the election and not sure if more candidates won but only as a plurality based on there being multiple candidates and did not win a majority of all voting.

[optimax]

There is a de facto religious test for political office, especially for president,not a legal requirement but a political one.Actually, there are twotests and the Democrats almost failed both. Obligatory mention of God and support for Israel have in recent years been conflated into the same sacred cultural base. God has always been part of our political discourse but Israel is a new addition. Of course, Israel is a new country but our politician's submission of America's interests to a foriegn power's is new. They might as well drop the last half of the Judeao-Christian compund. I see no Christianity in the Republican platform--and very little in the Dems (a little more compassion)--but only the Old Testament mixed with a bit of Ayn Rand's moral-capitalism.

There's is also a marriage and family test, a Mom test and I'm-an-average-guy test.

[scott s.]

I kind of disagree with your 16th amendment example. The history of that goes back to the taxing power and first arose when the Articles of Confederation were drafted. The drafters wanted a wealth-based tax levied on states to fund the general government. The problem was in measuring wealth. Two concepts emerged: using state population as a proxy, or a direct assessment mainly of real property. From negotiations on the population idea the 3/5s rule was agreed to as a compromise on the wealth derived from slavery. Though in the end, the assessment idea was enacted. This was pretty much a failure so when the Constitution was drafted, the taxing power was revisited. This time they created two general principles of taxation: "capitation and other direct taxes" which were apportioned by population following the 3/5s rule, and "duties, imposts, and excises" which were "uniform". Fast forward to late 19th c. and re-enactment of an income tax. The question for this tax, like all taxes, is whether it must follow the rule of apportionment or the rule of uniformity. In a disputed Supreme Court case it was ruled that you had to look to the source of income to determine which rule to apply. This made the income tax unmanageable, leading to the 16th amendment which simply says that income taxes follow the rule of uniformity regardless of source. The 16th provided no new taxing power. That congress had the power to tax incomes was not disputed.

For those who dislike income taxes, it might be worth looking at the history of direct taxes imposed by Congress several times in the early years, typically to fund wars. The direct tax I think was pretty darn intrusive.

And as an aside, the direct tax imposed during the Civil War was apportioned to so-called "seceded states" and stipulated payment in person. The R E Lees failed to do so and lost Arlington (though suit after the war restored the property by then you had the Freedmans' Village, National Cemetery, etc so it wasn't really practical to keep it and it was sold to the government).

[turcopolier]

scott s.

The amendment is clear. It permits the federal government to impose the tax. The tax is imposed by subsequent and sontinuing legislation. pl

[turcopolier]

optimax

Political tests have to do with the will of the voters not the government. pl

[optimax]

Col.

Yes, and the voters will the conventions take place in Oprah Land.

[steve]

Yes, Colonel, it's common for me to hear from one of my 18 yr. old freshmen that "so and so can't do that, it's unconstitutional" when they are referring to some private business. They are surprised when I tell them, for example, that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the local grocery store, only to the government (of course, there are certain laws which apply to that grocery store, but the Bill of Rights is certainly not one of them).

Those students are just learning, but we should expect a higher level of civic intelligence from the media.

Going on, in my opinion, the 16th Amendment did not allow states to do, or not to do, anything by implication.

Not to say that many states didn't jump on the income tax bandwagon when they saw the feds do it.

The 16th Amendment allowed a national income tax by overruling portions of the constitution which provided that a direct tax by the federal government had to be apportioned among the states.

None of that had anything to do with a state's taxing authority, either pre or post 16th amendment--that amendment and the other constitutional provisions which it overruled, were entirely directed at federal power.

In Tennessee, for example, its courts have long held there is a state constitutional bar to a state income tax.

[turcopolier]

steve

Thanks for the correction on state income taxes. Otherwise, I believe we are on the same page. pl

[Cold War Zoomie]

The Free-Speechers are the folks who drive me crazy. The language in the 1st Amendment is so clear and simple, yet I would hazard a guess that 90% of the population does not understand it.

I enjoyed this book immensely...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Summer-1787-Invented-Constitution/dp/0743286928

[The Moar You Know]

There's a reason your freshmen don't know this.

My local high school district just cut US Government classes. Entirely.

It's not money. They're building a three-story skybox for the football stadium.

I don't live in Texas, by the way, where such an action would be understandable (they like their football, as do I) if still unacceptable. No, I live in Southern California, in one of the wealthiest school districts in the United States.

Removing education and replacing it with something very much like a circus. Didn't some other society do this? English muffins and field hockey? Croissants and basketball? Something about bread, or maybe yeast. I can't remember. I was schooled in the same district.

[Fred]

Bread and Circuses, it worked great for the Romans (some of the time). Nero may have been one the worst emperors but he was still in charge for more than a decade.