Article I |
Okay, now we're getting to the really exciting stuff. Article I tells you everything there is to know about the Legislative branch of government; Congress, in other words. It creates Congress, defines the two houses of Congress, sets up the organization of Congress, grants certain powers (privileges) to Congress, specifically denies certain powers to Congress, and defines certain powers forbidden to the states.
The Constitution as a whole is really a short document. But comparatively speaking,
Article I is a real monster. It is considerably larger than any other article
in the entire Constitution, taking up nearly half of the entire document (amendments
excluded)!
It is very important to have a thorough understanding of Article I, because
it tells you if a particular act of Congress is legal or not!
In his book, Good to be King, Michael Badnarik devised a very good way of writing
about the Constitution. I'll use the same method here. The Constitution is divided
into several articles, typically marked with Roman Numerals (I, II, III, etc.).
Within each article, there may be several sections, typically marked with Arabic
Numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.). Individual clauses are generally not numbered, but
they are indented. You would have to count the paragraphs to identify a particular
clause.
Mr. Badnarik's system makes it a bit easier for a reader to follow along. Each
clause will be identified with three Arabic numbers. The first will be the article,
the second will be the section, the third will be the clause-and in the appendix,
the clauses will be numbered, even though this is not the norm). So, Article
I, Section 8, Clause 2, would be marked: 1.8.2. This will make it easier for
you to follow along with me as I discuss the Constitution.
Let's begin.
Section 1
The Legislative Branch
1.1.1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
That's it. We have a Congress, and it's divided into two houses. That's all we need to know about the legislative branch, right?
If you listen to the way politicians speak today, that would be true. But creating
a government entity is dangerous business if you don't immediately tie it down,
before it has a chance to grow and go wild with your freedom.
Interestingly enough, this seemingly innocent clause almost caused us not to
have a Constitution at all. We're dividing up representation.
The small states say "One state, one vote, that's fair."
The large states say "No, no, no. We have so many more people than you
do, we should get more votes."
"But," say the small states, "You're so big, you can win a debate
single-handedly. We won't have a voice at all."
The small states and large states fought long and hard about this issue, each
of them trying to do what was "fair" for their side.
Eventually, it was decided that there would be a Senate and a House of Representatives.
We would do it both ways.
Each state would get one vote in the Senate (at the last minute, it was changed
to two votes, in case someone got sick). But the House of Representatives would
represent the people based on population. This was known as the Great Compromise.
And this, too, has been bastardized by modern politics. More about that later.
Section 2
The House of Representatives
1.2.1 The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
1.2.2 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the Unites States,
and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he
shall be chosen.
These are carefully thought out limitations, designed simply to insure that Representatives should be well qualified for their post. They have little impact on personal freedom.
The selected age of twenty-five years, however, was arbitrary. Basically, the
Founding Fathers just didn't want children to accidentally get elected. The
age could just as easily be eighteen years, twenty years, or thirty years, and
it would make little difference with regards to the way our country is run.
I would much sooner support an amendment lowering the age than raising it, though.
The young are not as experienced, but they've had less time, generally, to become
corrupt.
In my state of Colorado (forgive all the Colorado references, but I know it
better than any other state) there is a large group of people trying to lower
the age limit for the state legislature to the age of eighteen years. Personally,
I will support the measure-if anything ever comes of it-but am still less likely
to actually vote for someone in that age group.
1.2.3 [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.] The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct….
This is talking about the Census. The state has a right to know how many people
live in your house. They can do their little head-count and no one will complain
about it. They also have a right to ask my race, religion, or other personal
questions, but I reserve the right not to answer. Really, they have the right
to ask whatever they want. But the Constitution does not require anyone to give
any personal information. Just put down your name and how many people live at
your house.
The text in brackets was altered by section two of the fourteenth amendment,
which we'll discuss when we get to the amendments.
Notice the different types of people listed, though. The whole number of free
persons. What does that mean? White men. Indians not taxed are in reference
to the "foreigners" whose land we took (one of the many skeletons
in our national closet). But what's this about "three-fifths of all other
Persons?"
That's a far worse skeleton in our national closet. Much to our national shame,
this was one of the biggest debates. The southern states had slaves. The northern
states, for the most part, did not. In the south, they were trying to get as
much representation as they could get. In that regard, they wanted to count
the slaves. However, if a slave was counted as a "full person," that
slave would have direct representation-and be a free person. So they raised
the slaves up from being not a person to being a partial person. Horrible, yes.
But it was an improvement.
For now, we can skip the rest of Section 2, as it's not directly relevant to
our discussion, and it would be wise to save space. It will be included, along
with the entire Constitution, in the appendix.
Section 3
The Senate
1.3.1 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,] for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Look at this clause carefully. The Senators are chosen by the state legislatures. Is that how we do it now? Nope. The text in brackets was changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment. Today, the Senators are directly elected by the people of the state in question.
Okay, so it's changed (when I discuss the 17th Amendment later, we'll discuss
this in greater detail). The question is: is this change a good thing, or a
bad thing?
Out of curiosity, I conducted an informal poll. I wanted to see what people
thought about this. So I asked a handful of people I know whether the 17th Amendment
changing the election process for Senators was a good thing or a bad thing.
Many of them didn't have a clue what I was talking about-god forbid anyone actually
read the Constitution-so I changed my methods.
I explained what 1.3.1 said, and explained how it was changed by the 17th Amendment.
Then I asked if it was good or bad. Know what most of them said? They said:
"Sounds like a good idea to me. We are a democracy after all."
Well, a pure democracy is not a good thing, as I already explained.
(Note for the website: Contrary to popular belief, this country is NOT a democracy, but a republic (these titles have nothing to do with the two major political parties). A democracy means the majority rules--on everything. In a republic, you still get to vote, but your individual rights are protected, even from the vote of the majority.)
But what danger could there be in directly electing Senators? That's understandable logic, and I certainly see why most people think that way-even ignoring the idea of a democracy.
But it's not a good idea. Here's why.
It interrupts the flow of power. We the People created the government, so it
makes a degree of sense that we should directly choose our politicians. However,
the flow of power is supposed to work something like this:
We the People (100% of the power)
We the People give the states a small number of limited privileges
States (10% of the power)
The states then give the federal/national government a small amount of power
Federal/national (1% of the power)
By changing this flow of power, it's possible that We the People might accidentally give too much power to the federal/national government.
More importantly, look back at 1.1.1. Congress is divided into two houses. Representatives
are apportioned according to population. They represent the people. Senators
are divided by state, and their job is to prevent the federal/national government
from trying to control the states. It's true, they all represent the people.
But the House represents the people directly, while the Senate represents the
people through the states.
When we started electing Senators directly, we basically got two Houses, because
now the Senate does the same thing as the House.
1.4.2 The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,] unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Why in the world would the Founding Fathers write that down? Why would they
waste the time and space to require Congress to meet one day per year. Hell,
Congress is in session almost all year now!
This is the clause they don't want you to read, because it's clear evidence
that Congress is doing more than it's supposed to be doing. We'll study in a
few moments just what Congress is authorized to do. But understand that it's
not a lot.
The Founding Fathers were terrified that all the newly elected Congressmen would
have a big party to celebrate their victory, and then they'd go home and never
come back. We don't want anarchy. Congress needs to check in once in a while
to make sure things aren't falling apart. So it was written that they should
meet once per year on the first Monday in December (the date was later changed
to the third day of January by the Twentieth Amendment).
All the Congressmen would wander in, say their hellos. Maybe they'd build a
post office, make sure we're not at war with anyone, and then they'd go home.
Why don't we remind Congress that they really do have homes to go back to, and
encourage them to see their families more often?
Sections 5, 6, and 7 are all about the rules of Conduct, and how Congress works.
I strongly recommend you read through these sections if you want to have an
idea how things are run in Washington (or at least how they're supposed to be
run). For right now, though, we should move on with our study of other sections.
Section 8
Powers Granted to Congress
Remember that We the People have rights, and that we grant privileges to the government? Section 8 is a list of the eighteen privileges we've granted to Congress. Anything else they do is un-Constitutional.
Let's see what they're allowed to do.
1.8.1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I'm not going to spend too much time on this clause, because in a later chapter
I'm going to discuss taxation thoroughly. However, it is very important that
we recognize a few principles. Congress does not have the power to "lay
and collect taxes every April 15 for whatever they want." Congress has
the power to collect these taxes for only three purposes.
To pay the debts: Under the Articles of Confederation, they were having a hard
time paying the debt, so they wanted to make sure they could pay any debt they
owed.
To provide for the common defense: Just in case someone decides to send an army
to destroy us, it's important that Congress has a means to fund our own defense.
To provide for the general welfare: As you'll remember when we discussed the
Preamble, this same phrase came up. Remember also that "general welfare"
is not the same as "specific welfare." General welfare is good for
everybody. Specific welfare is good for only some people.
As an example, public roads could be considered to support the general welfare.
Even if you don't drive-and most people do-you use goods and eat food that is
transported over the same roads. So they do benefit everybody.
Food stamps are specific welfare. They benefit only the people who get them,
while everybody else has to pay for them. This is not general welfare, so it's
not Constitutional.
We'll discuss the issues in later chapters and decide whether public roads or
food stamps are good ideas. Right now, I'm just telling you what is or is not
Constitutional.
1.8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Pretty straight forward, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. The American
Revolution could never have been won (actually, we didn't really win, we just
refused to lose, but that makes little difference to this issue) without borrowing
money from France and Spain. It is a very dangerous power, however, and I strongly
believe it should never be used except in times of emergency (i.e., war).
We'll discuss the economy in much greater detail later.
So, it's a necessary power. But it's a dangerous power, which should be used
sparingly. Congress today is using this power much more than it should.
1.8.3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Really, listing Indian Tribes and foreign nations separately is redundant, because
the Indians (even though they were here first) were considered foreigners.
Regulation today means "lots and lots of laws." So, this is a frequently
misunderstood clause. The Founding Fathers did not mean for Congress to pass
tons of laws telling people what they can or can't trade with other nations.
What this clause was intended to mean, in today's terms, is: "To facilitate
Commerce…."
1.8.4 To establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization,
and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
1.8.5 To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
the Standard of Weights and Measures;
We're going to talk about the Federal Reserve System later in the book. However, we must recognize that one of the reasons we have the Constitution instead of the Articles of Confederation, is that all the states were printing money and inflation was out of control.
So, Congress has the power to "coin" money. It does not say that Congress
has the power to "print" money. There's a difference, and it's very
important to understand that precious metals are money. Paper is merely the
ghost of money.
And to regulate the value of foreign coin simply means that they have the power
to set the exchange rate.
Why is a standard of weights and measures included in this clause, though? This
is further evidence that precious metals are money, rather than paper. If I
say that an ounce of silver is a dollar, you need to know how much an ounce
is. So the standard of weights and measures is directly tied to the money supply.
Understand also that Congress doesn't have the power to give this authority
to someone else. I don't mean they can't hire someone to mint the coins-the
U.S. Mint is not part of Congress. What I mean is that they cannot give the
authority to set the value of the dollar to the Federal Reserve Bank. We'll
discuss this in great detail later.
1.8.6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
One of only three crimes the federal government is permitted to prosecute is
counterfeiting. Notice once again the word "coin." Congress has failed
miserably in this duty. Instead of punishing counterfeiters, they have presumed
to give the legal authority to counterfeit to the Federal Reserve.
1.8.7 To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
1.8.8 To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
This gives Congress the power to determine copyright law. Again, not inherently
evil. However, I contend that as soon as you create something-say, a novel-it
is your property. It is the responsibility of government to protect your property
from theft. Great, that's what this clause does. Unfortunately, the phrase "for
limited Times" implies that Congress grants people the right to their own
creations (a contradiction in terms because a right cannot be granted).
We don't need Congress to have the rights to our own creations. We need government
to protect those already existing rights.
1.8.9 To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Congress can create agencies that look like the courts established by Article
III. However, these are administrative tribunals without the force of law. Commonly,
they are known as "Article I Courts."
This is a very complicated issue, which we'll discuss more in our chapter on
Article III.
1.8.10 To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
First, the Law of Nations says nothing of the United Nations, so get that thought
out of your head right now. I'm sick of people assuming that the Founding Fathers
had the gift of premonition. At the time the Constitution was written, there
was no United Nations.
Also notice that the second of three crimes the federal government can prosecute
is piracy.
1.8.11 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
The first thing to notice is that Congress has the power to declare war. When
we get to Article II, we will learn that the President does not. So, whenever
a President presumes to send troops to war without a Congressional declaration
of war, he is violating the Constitution.
Also notice that Congress can grant letters of Marque and Reprisal. Basically,
this is a means to avoid war if possible.
Everyone is familiar with James Bond. Licensed to kill. Well, that's kind of what letters of Marque and Reprisal are. Basically, Congress can give someone authority to kill, outside of war, without fear of criminal charges.
The idea is that we don't want to send 100,000 troops to war if we can send
five men to solve the problem instead. Just as an example, I'll use our current
situation in Iraq. Rather than going to war (note that the president did not
wait for a Congressional declaration of war), it may have been a better idea
to send a few Navy Seals to eliminate Saddam Hussein without losing so many
thousands of American troops.
I'm not saying that would have been the right thing to do. I'm not a foreign
policy expert-I'm more of a domestic policy scholar. But it was another possibility.
1.8.12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Congress has the power to raise an army for a period of only two years. Why
only two years? One of the greatest fears the Founding Fathers had was that
of standing armies.
Standing navies aren't a threat to freedom, because they do their work in the
middle of the ocean. Armies do their work on land. And standing armies have
a tendency to get bored standing around doing nothing, so they may begin to
threaten the very people they're commissioned to protect.
1.8.13 To provide and maintain a Navy;
See the difference? They can raise and support an army for two years. They can
provide and maintain a Navy. No time limit, because standing navies don't threaten
freedom.
1.8.14 To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Congress doesn't have the power to make laws for anything they want. But as
far as the government of the military is concerned, Congress can basically do
whatever they want. The military have volunteered to serve the country, which
means they're obligated to do what they're told. So Congress basically has dictatorial
powers over the military, but not over We the People.
1.8.15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Now, the first question many of you will ask is: What's the Militia? That's
a logical question, because most people don't have a clue about the Militia.
It's a common belief that the Militia is the National Guard. Not so. The Constitution
was written in 1787. The National Guard wasn't created until the early 1900s.
Rather, the Militia is We the People.
Once people recognize that, they instantly think of the draft. After all, Congress
can call forth the Militia. Well, yes and no. The draft is one of the most damnable
heresies ever perpetrated against the American people.
What Congress actually has the power to do is to issue a call for Americans
to join the organized military to fight whatever enemy may be threatening us.
Any individual also has the right to refuse to join.
Modern warfare is much faster than it used to be, though. That's where the National
Guard comes in. The National Guard is a militia. It is not "the" militia.
However, having the National Guard organized and ready to take action (while
still not becoming a standing army) makes us somewhat more prepared for a sudden
attack.
1.8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In other words, Congress has the power to govern the militia when in actual
service in time of war.
It is an interesting notion that Congress is given the responsibility of arming
the militia. There are two ways to interpret this.
1) Congress is obligated to give everyone a gun.
2) Congress is obligated to give everyone a gun when in actual service.
The first is certainly an interesting idea, especially when compared to all
the gun laws we have today. However, I think the second is probably the proper
way to interpret this clause. We all have a right to keep and bear arms, but
if we aren't actively serving the country-and we should not be forced to-the
country should not be obligated to supply our arms.
There is no historical context to finally settle this debate, though. Congress
didn't have to arm the militia, because everyone already had guns.
If you look at the first eight words of the next clause, it can be horribly misleading. Personally, I believe those are the only eight words of the Constitution most Congressmen have ever read.
1.8.17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Of all the Constitution, this is one of the worst clauses. Let's break it apart
and see what it means.
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" means
that Congress has dictatorial powers. The district specified as the new "Seat
of the Government" is Washington, D. C. So Congress has dictatorial powers
over Washington. I certainly don't like that-I'd rather just give them two or
three buildings to control-but at least it's just ten miles, right?
Wrong. They may also purchase-with the consent of the states-any other land
they want. Even still, I would be okay with it if it were only for "forts,
magazines, arsenals, and dock-yards." I would also be okay with it if other
specified buildings were listed. However, the last phrase, "and other needful
Buildings" is quite a loophole, since "needful" isn't defined.
The federal/national government has purchased more than its share of land in
this country, and Congress can execute dictatorial power over all of that land.
1.8.18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is by far the worst clause of Article I. It seems that Congress today believes
that everything they put on paper is "necessary and proper." The bad
news is that they can do anything they want to execute the powers vested by
the Constitution. The good news is that they can only pass laws related to the
powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution.
It's not as bad as it could be, but it's certainly abused by Congress almost
every day of the year.
Now, do you remember when I said that Article I is a monster of an article? We're done with the powers granted to Congress. That should be all that's necessary, right? But the Founding Fathers knew that Congress might try to abuse its powers, so they created a list of powers prohibited to Congress.
If a mother tells her child, "You can have an apple, or you can have an
orange," she has given that child two privileges. Everything that's not
an apple or an orange is prohibited. However what will be the child's next question?
He'll probably ask, "Can I have a cookie?"
So, though we have a list of the ONLY powers that we have given to Congress,
the Founding Fathers understood that Congress is like a child-they need a list
of things they can't do.
1.9.1 The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
When most people read this the first time, they don't have a clue what it means.
There's a good reason for that. It was deliberately made difficult to understand,
because the Founding Fathers didn't want to just come out and say what they
meant.
This is also one of my least favorite clauses of the Constitution, and for good
reason. This clause actually prohibited Congress from making slavery illegal
until 1808. Another skeleton in our national closet.
Here's the problem. Slavery was on its way out. The northern states recognized
this before the southern states did, though. The southern states still depended
on slavery for their economy, so they had a fear that the northern states might
be able to make slavery illegal before they were ready for it.
In order to get southern states to ratify, they needed this clause. It made
the southern states feel more secure.
However, there's another related skeleton in our closet. This clause prohibited
Congress from making slavery illegal until 1808. When we get to the 13th Amendment,
we'll discuss this again. But the 13th Amendment finally abolished slavery.
It was ratified in 1865, just after the Civil War. For a period of fifty-seven
years, we could have abolished slavery but did not. This, in my opinion, is
far worse than the original idea expressed in 1.9.1.
1.9.2 The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Habeas Corpus prevents the government from throwing someone in jail without
a warrant and indictment. Unfortunately, this clause provides no real protection.
Our rights are in the most jeopardy during times of emergency, so where is the
logic behind allowing Congress to ignore Habeas Corpus during those times?
In fact, this is the excuse being used by the Bush Administration today to attempt
to justify the Patriot Act.
Note that the word "privilege" is misused in this clause.
1.9.3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The wording is quite simple. The confusion about this clause comes from the
fact that people don't know what a bill of attainder or ex post facto law is.
Basically, we can divide this clause into two parts. The "bill of attainder
part" and the "ex post facto part."
The first, prohibiting bills of attainder, means that government cannot take
your property unless you're convicted of a crime. Today, the IRS presumes to
seize property simply on the basis of the possibility that you might have committed
a crime. And other branches of government have changed the name to Eminent Domain,
and assume they can take your property as long as it's used for the "greater
good."
No matter who takes the property or why, it's still theft. This clause attempted
to prevent that, but unless We the People hold the government to it, it doesn't
mean anything.
The second part ensures that Congress can't pass an ex post facto law. In modern
language, that means they can't make something illegal retroactively. In other
words, they can't convict you in December for doing something in October that
wasn't illegal at the time.
And yet, they do it all the time. Whenever people are talking about passing
a law retroactively, point them to 1.9.3 so they can understand that it's really
not such a cool thing.
1.9.4 No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Whenever someone sees the Constitution for the first time, their first response
is usually, "it's so small!" The Founding Fathers didn't waste any
time in the Constitution. Everything has a specific meaning and nothing is overstated.
Therefore, it should illustrate how important this issue is, because it's the
only one addressed twice in the Constitution. It is first addressed in 1.2.3
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…)
The point the Founding Fathers are so eager to get across is that direct taxes
must be apportioned. Store that away for later, when we get to taxation. For
now, simply understand that, though it is widely understood that the Sixteenth
Amendment changes this rule, it doesn't.
1.9.5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from
any State.
1.9.6 No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue
to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to,
or from, one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
1.9.7 No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
This basically means that government can't take money from the Treasury for
whatever they want. And to ensure that it's properly spent, they're required
to report all transactions to We the People.
Unfortunately, it just says that a "regular statement…shall be published
from time to time." It would be far stronger if the statement were required
to be published annually (or bi-annually, or quarterly, or whatever period of
time seems appropriate). As it is now, it's too easy to get by with not publishing
these statements.
Whenever you hear of a "black budget" operation, it's in violation
of this clause, however, because it means that the expenditures are not being
disclosed to the public-even though it is our money.
1.9.8 No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Powerful stuff. Basically this means that we don't recognize the class system
used in England and other countries. All men are created equal. We don't have
kings, princes, dukes, earls, etc. Those are titles of nobility. 1.9.8 prohibits
titles of nobility from being recognized within these United States.
Think that's interesting? Wait 'till we get to our discussion of the Thirteenth
Amendment…
1.10.1 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
There's a lot of stuff here. The first thing you might have noticed is that
we've branched off into another section of Article I without my telling you.
Section 9 was all about what Congress can't do. Section 10 is still a list of
what government can't do, but it applies to the states.
The first thing no state can do is enter into any new alliance or confederation.
This is because they're already in one. These united States. That's plural.
Each state is, in a sense, a nation, bound in a union with the other states,
so we don't want states forming alliances with foreign nations.
Nor are the states allowed to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The idea
was that the federal/national government would deal with the issues of national
defense, including war. And if they are responsible for war and foreign relations,
they should also be the ones to grant letters of marque and reprisal (that James
Bond stuff).
The states can't coin money or emit bills of credit. The reason for this is
historical. Under the Articles of Confederation, every state was printing fiat
money and inflation was going crazy with our economy. The Founding Fathers wrote
the Constitution to prevent that. However, I think they may have gone further
than necessary.
Bills of credit are notes, like the Federal Reserve Notes we use today. A bill
of credit is paper money that is not backed by gold or silver. It's fiat money.
It is my opinion that Section 9 should have been more specific to prevent Congress
from doing the same (and in retrospect, we should have specifically prohibited
the charter of a private organization to do it instead of Congress). However,
that part of Section 10 is excellent. It keeps the states from printing fiat
money.
Preventing the states from coining money is understandable from a point of view,
but it's also silly. Because to "coin" money means to stamp silver
or gold (or copper, for smaller denominations) into round shapes used for currency.
Since it's a precious metal currency, it's inflation proof, and there's nothing
to worry about, even if the states are coining money.
Having a single national currency, though, is probably the best idea. It's more
convenient than having Texas money, and Colorado money, and New York money,
and California money, and so on.
No state can make anything but gold or silver a tender in the payment of debts.
Technically, this does not prevent Congress from letting the Federal Reserve
do so. So this part of 1.10.1 may not be violated according to the letter of
the law. But isn't it obvious that the Founding Fathers wanted a currency of
gold and silver? Otherwise, why would they have listed these two commodities
specifically? I think that they simply didn't anticipate their posterity being
so stupid we couldn't figure it out.
Like the Congress, states aren't allowed to pass any bill of attainder, ex post
facto law, or grant titles of nobility.
States also can't pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. We'll
discuss our unlimited right to contract later in the book.
There are several other powers forbidden to the states, which we won't discuss here.
This concludes our study of Article I. Hopefully this has given you a better
idea of what is or is not Constitutional with regards to the Congress. We turn
our study now to Article II.