With the start of the 112th Congress, Tea Party activists are brimming with pride over the fact that the new House GOP leadership will kick off the legislative session with a reading of the Constitution on the House floor. As a progressive constitutionalist, I wholeheartedly agree with the Tea Party and incoming Speaker John Boehner that reading the entire Constitution on the House floor is a fantastic idea. I also agree with Boehner's requirement that all bills in the House include a citation to the provision of the Constitution that supports the congressional power that would be exercised in the proposed legislation. But I am pretty sure that I am in complete disagreement with the Tea Party and its elected allies on where this focus on the Constitution will take us.
This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document.
You might have missed the progressive nature of our Constitution's text and history in the whirlwind of Tea Party rhetoric this past year. According to the "Constitution According to the Tea Party," the central government is weak and incapable of addressing national issues such as health care reform, environmental protection, and financial system reform. But the Tea Party's version of the Constitution has far more in common with the failed Articles of Confederation -- the dysfunctional, loose confederacy that was in place between 1776 and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 -- than with our actual, enduring U.S. Constitution.
To be sure, the powers of the federal government under our Constitution are not unlimited -- the Constitution establishes a central government of enumerated powers, and our States play a vital role in our federalist system -- but the powers our charter does grant to the federal government are broad and substantial. And, since the Founding, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress has all the tools it needs to address national problems and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments expanded the enumerated powers of the federal government, giving vast powers to the government to protect equality, civil rights, and voting rights, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers disdain these Amendments -- or even want to repeal them -- but they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the language written in 1787. When the new members of Congress are sworn in this week, they will swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts written in the 18th century.
So when members of the House read the entire Constitution this week, we should all follow along, and members of the House should embrace the requirement that they cite constitutional authority for proposed legislation. Prominent progressive commentators such as E.J. Dionne and Greg Sargent have correctly noted that progressives should welcome a battle with the Tea Party over the Constitution. A great way to do this would be for members of the House to use these constitutional authority statements to tell the progressive story of our Constitution. Here are a few constitutional grants of authority to Congress that could be used to support key progressive policies (this short list is by no means exhaustive, and I encourage suggestions for other provisions and policies in the comments):
• The "Power to lay and collect Taxes" to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (article I, section 8), which gives the federal government broad authority to further national policies, such as ensuring health care for the poor (Medicaid) and provide security for older Americans (Social Security).
• The power to establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization" (art. I, § 8), which means that only Congress can enact immigration reform, and also that state anti-immigration laws, like Arizona's SB 1070, are an unconstitutional infringement of Congress's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
• The power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" (art. I, § 8), which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, the national health care industry.
• The crucial power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" (art. I, § 8) for carrying out all constitutional powers granted to the federal government, which means, for example, that Congress can require individuals who can afford it to obtain health insurance in order to carry out its authority to regulate the interstate health insurance industry and ensure affordable, non-discriminatory health care.
• The power "to enforce, by appropriate legislation" (amendment XIV, § 5) the provisions of the 14th Amendment, provisions that guarantee birthright citizenship; protect the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (which were understood by the framers to include personal liberties such as the right to marry and form a family); require "due process of law," and guarantee the "equal protection of the laws" (amendment XIV, § 1). This text provides Congress with constitutional authority to enact profoundly progressive legislation, for example, prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, or outlawing certain hate crimes.
• The power to "enforce . . . by appropriate legislation" the right of U.S. citizens to vote free from discrimination based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (amendment XV) or "on account of sex" (amendment XIX), which gives Congress the authority to enact measures such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (lately under constant attack in the courts).
Reading the entire Constitution, as the House will do this week, leaves the unmistakable impression that our constitutional story is inherently progressive. "We the People" have taken a great but deeply flawed original national charter and made it even greater -- creating an even "more perfect union"--by writing into our Constitution, through the amendment process, the abolition of slavery, expanded democracy, and fundamental equality and liberty. Because the text and history of our Constitution are fundamentally progressive, there is no need for those on the left to shy away from Speaker Boehner's requirement that all bills contain a citation to the constitutional grant of authority that allows the proposed legislation. Progressives should cheer the new Republican-led House's embrace of the Constitution -- and hold all members of Congress to their oath to be faithful to it, all of it.
I hope that is a subsequent post you will include some discussion of the place of the Declaration of Independence and also of the Preamble to the Constitution. After all, as Lincoln said it so eloquently, those soldiers who died at Gettysburg gave their lives to make the whole of both documents, and the whole of the Union they founded, sacred.
We need to inform ourselves extensively to cease from trashing our sacred inheritance.
Furthermore, our sacred inheritance is far too important to be left to the clerics to "interpret" for us. As Jesus said it so well, God speaks to every one of us in our bodies. If we can remember this, we can overcome all the ancient traditions of letting the clerics continue misleading us on not just our Constitution & the Declaration of Independence, but also our entire sacred inheritance, beginning with our very own individual bodies.
Lincoln destroyed / trashed The Federal Republic and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. All you need do is study the The Declaration if Independence and The Constitutional debates, both Confederate / Anti-Federalist and Federalist, and you will see that " We The People are " no longer have either Liberty as was declared in the declaration, or the Republic that Ben Franklin said we were given. You now have a corporate controlled National empire. Most have fallen victim of the Machiavellian Illusion. Most are fooled into believing that the Federal Constitution established a Nation, or Country, instead of a union of sovereign States. Most have been convinced that the Federal Constitution established a democracy rather than a Republic.
The Declaration of Independence states that,,,,"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Can you honestly now say that the people of any of the sovereign States can Declare their independence from the National empire, and...... " institute new government ?
Hear the words of.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
You are victims of a Corporate illusion !!!!
According to Kenneth Kersch, a similarly credentialed Constitutional scholar from Princeton: "As a touchstone for constitutional interpretation, (Mr. Amar's) originalism serves its purpose only when practiced in the proper spirit, a spirit that tries to insulate the interpreter from the whims and prejudices of his day. In the wrong hands, it can be all sail and no anchor, a tool for both judicial activism and government beyond law. The Constitution's “real end,” Amar ventures at one point, “is the vast creative white space looming just beyond the latest amendment.” It is a space, alas, he knows too well." (published book review, America’s Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar, Sept 2005.)
Of course Article III gives the Courts the prerogative to interpret the laws in view of the Constitution. But we the people still have the power, if we will only stop abandoning it to clowns, to make the laws.
While it helps to hear the opinions and thoughts of "experts," it is also important to remember that experts are people who tend to see a very small part of something as if it were the whole world. They often suppose that whatever molehill falls beneath their gaze is the one and only mountain that matters.
Cynicism never was worth having. It still isn't
• The power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" (art. I, § 8), which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, the national health care industry.
• The crucial power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" (art. I, § 8) for carrying out all constitutional powers granted to the federal government, which means, for example, that Congress can require individuals who can afford it to obtain health insurance in order to carry out its authority to regulate the interstate health insurance industry and ensure affordable, non-discriminatory health care.
Your explanation shows what a slippery slope your reading of the Constitution is. I disagree with you on your conclusions here. The key word on the first section is REGULATE not ENFORCE. And it appears to be regulating business between the STATES. Doesn't that mean the law should be state run? The second part is to make laws necessary to carry out the Constitution of the land. Where is there a guarantee to get PRIVATE health care? Your argument makes no sense to me.
If you really want to throw a wrench into the fire, some of these Amendments appear to have passed through shady tactics if you study history. (I am looking at you Amendments 16-18). But what this boils down to is how you interpret the document. And like my post says, two people can read into things completely differently than others.
This should be a great day and a great congress for the Dems. They will be seen to be following the constitution more so than ANYTHING the GOP have ever tried to legislate or propose. The Dems are, in fact, the defenders of the Constitution. Have been for many, many years.
Case in point, The Patriot Act. Enacted in haste under GOP leadership all around. Completely unconstitutional and it shreds the Constitution in many areas. It still exists only because any challenge in court has ultimately been dropped before it ever made it to the Federal level where it would have been ruled unconstitutional.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
There is no direct requirement for this oath, but the Constitution clearly says:
Constitution, Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
What part of this contains weasel-words that I'm missing? Shouldn't lying when taking the oath disqualify you from serving?
I hope all constitutional scholars are all on alert watching this scam very closely, and not let them get away this.
And the Bill of Rights, while extremely important, aren't a grant of rights (as progressives would have you believe). They are an acknowledgment of natural, inalienable rights. And, as stated in the 9th amendment, these rights are not exhaustively listed. It's only through the progressive re-writing of the constitution that other rights, like economic rights, are ignored.
So Ms. Wyard and I agree that this debate over the constitution is much needed, but let's not start out with the standard "progressive" inaccuracies. Be honest. If your argument requires deceit, maybe you're arguing for the wrong thing.
The bill of rights are neither acknowledgement or grants, they are limitation on the power of the federal govenrment. The bill of rights became limitation on the power of state government with the admoption of the 14th admendment.
The constitution differs from the articles in the establisment of the Executive and Judicial branches, and the Supremacy clause - which indicates the federal govenrment (law) is supreme to states.
And again, the bill of rights are just an acknowledgment. I do see what you are trying to say, but the constitution itself is the limitation on the the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates some of those rights. And yes there was debate on how amendments affected the states, but the 14th was put in to mainly to address southern states from ignoring the 13th amendment (not part of the bill of rights).
I agree the articles differ as you state, but, in my opinion, the main difference was external concerns of the states (both addressed foreign nations, but the US constitution addresses interstate interactions) and the power to tax.
LOL!!!!! Boy you guys are funny.