The Constitution, a test...

[JohnBirchSociety]

In the spirit of trying to prepare myself, and the people I care about (friends, family, the Church) to fulfill the prophetic call of Joseph Smith to save our Constitution, I thought it might be instructive to see what we know or don't know about the Constitution.

As instruction, I offer the following points, which I'd like forum members to respond to as being part of the Constitution, or not.

1) Federally funded public education.

2) Federal Reserve System.

3) Balance of Power (Checks and Balances).

4) Citizen detention without trial.

5) Slavery.

6) Paper currency.

[a-train]

Come on. Three.

-a-train

[austro-libertarian]

Checks and Balances. With regard to the other five, we see those good old "checks and balances" ain't workin' too well.

Edited November 16, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[JohnBirchSociety]

Checks and Balances. With regard to the other five, we see those good old "checks and balances" ain't workin' too well.

Interesting. I used to think that "checks and balances" were part of the Constitution. Then I actually read the darn thing, and voila, was I surprised!

Actually, there are no "checks and balances" in the full sense, in the Constitution. By this I mean that there are no checks on Congress in the Constitution (other than the principle of enumerative powers, which is logically implied but not mandated by the text).

Congress checks the other branches of government in a complete and total sense by the following:

1) Executive

a) Congress can impeach the President and remove him from office.

b) Congress can de-fund the Executive branch.

2) Judicial

a) Congress can impeach the Supreme Court.

b) Congress can completely limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Neither the Executive, nor the Judicial has the power to remove any Member of Congress or stop the activities of Congress.

Therefore, though there are checks on the Executive and the Judicial by Congress in the Constitution, there is not a "checks and balances" in the Constitution.

What think you?

[PeterVenkman]

Interesting. I used to think that "checks and balances" were part of the Constitution. Then I actually read the darn thing, and voila, was I surprised!

Actually, there are no "checks and balances" in the full sense, in the Constitution. By this I mean that there are no checks on Congress in the Constitution (other than the principle of enumerative powers, which is logically implied but not mandated by the text).

Congress checks the other branches of government in a complete and total sense by the following:

1) Executive

a) Congress can impeach the President and remove him from office.

b) Congress can de-fund the Executive branch.

2) Judicial

a) Congress can impeach the Supreme Court.

b) Congress can completely limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Neither the Executive, nor the Judicial has the power to remove any Member of Congress or stop the activities of Congress.

Therefore, though there are checks on the Executive and the Judicial by Congress in the Constitution, there is not a "checks and balances" in the Constitution.

What think you?

That's not completely true. The judicial branch can stop the activities of Congress by overturning any laws it finds unconstitutional. Likewise, the President has veto power conferred by the constitution which he may use to invalidate congressional laws.

The Congress does not have complete power, as it is limited in scope by the separation of the house and senate, and by political concerns that ultimately lead to re-election. Judges don't have to be re-elected, but congresspeople do. That is its own check on the power of the legislature.

The text of the constitution actually does state that powers are enumerated. That would be the 9th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights that was passed along with the original constitution.

[austro-libertarian]

What think you?

My initial response to your question was that none were constitutional. Then I googled "checks and balances" "US constitution" to make sure. It is implied , and sometimes explicit, under the "separation of powers."

As far as "checking" Congress, there is the Executive branch:

The President exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto except for a pocket veto by a two-thirds majority in each house.

And there is the Judicial: The Supreme Court also has a check on Congress through the judicial review process.

I am not even sure you are technically correct. This isn't my specialty so you convince me (and apparently a-train) otherwise.

(Note: I just read the previous response after my post; it seems PeterVenkman and I are in agreement.)

Edited November 17, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[Hemidakota]

At this point John, I do agree with what is coming. After initial analysis of the so-called un-American [Obama's quote] if you didn't signed my stimulus package, I guess, I am one of those soon-to-be members who oppose the government and placed in a FEMA camp. :)

[brookshes]

IMO, the Constitution IS the checks and balances you speak of.. at the top of all three brances of federal government is state governments, atop that, the people.. now for the rest:

1) Federally funded public education - No.

2) Federal Reserve System - no, the closest thing is the 16th amendment, which establishes the power for the federal government to tax income.. it was never ratified, BUT.. in short answer, no. (INCOME TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

3) Balance of Power (Checks and Balances) - see my original statement ^up top^.

4) Citizen detention without trial - No.

5) Slavery - the abolition of slavery is the 13th amendment.

6) Paper currency - no, Congress is given the right to "COIN" money, and regulate the value thereof.

Teacher, did I pass? :)

[Moksha]

Wow, a lot of necessary things were left out of the Constitution. Thank goodness we believe in a modern-day government.

[talisyn]

Do you consider amendments to be part of the Federal Constitution?

[brookshes]

Do you consider amendments to be part of the Federal Constitution?

If that was directed at me,

"Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America" - yes. This includes the Bill of Rights, our first 10 amendments.. the most important part of the Constitution.

Are all amendments Constitutional? - no. Which ones do I believe to be unconstitutional?

the 13th amendment (abolished slavery) was not needed, as slavery should have never happened in the first place.. 9th amendment -"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Although the Constitution doesn't proclaim this notion, our founding fathers, in the Declaration of Independence made it known that our country was being founded on the notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".. 'rights' given to us by our Creator, that even the government could not take away.. the 9th amendment, I believe covers that notion. This made slavery illegal before the 13th amendment. Slavery was wrong before it was written in the Constitution. Not unconstitutional, just not needed.

the 16th amendment - was never ratified by the majority of Congress needed - invalid.

the 27th amendment.. I could go on with the list. All amendments aside from the "Bill of Rights" should have been left to the state governments. The constitution was written to protect the people and the states Rights, *it* gave regulation to the Federal government, not privilage.

Edited February 19, 2009 by brookshes
last sentence.. I wrote I, instead of 'it'

[ninjormon]

There are no checks and balances if the people in all three systems are on the same side or lobbying one another for thier own cause and in that case its just a check no balance