| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| | == Senate == | | == Senate == |
| | | | |
| | + | ==IV. Legislative [[History]]== |
| | | | |
| | + | The [[Constitution]] is a model of clarity compared with what [[Congress]] passes each year. Ambiguities pervade laws passed by [[Congress]]. Often the [[congressman|congressmen]] argue among themselves, and then pass [[language]] that is a compromise. They may not even agree what the [[language]] means at the [[time]] it is passed. |
| | | | |
| − | == Election 2010 == | + | [[Senator]]s like [[Ted Kennedy]] make comments on the [[Senate]] floor and in [[committee]] reports about what they feel the [[statute]]s mean. Sometimes lengthy descriptions of intent are inserted by a few [[senator]]s into these reports. [[Court]]s then pick up on these comments to find meanings that may not have been shared by most of the supporters of the [[statute]]s. |
| | + | |
| | + | The reports and [[statement]]s by [[congressman|congressmen]] in connection with passage of a [[bill]] are known as its “[[legislative]] [[history]].” For most of our [[history]], it was popular for [[court]]s to rely heavily on [[legislative]] [[history]] in interpreting a [[statute]]. To combat this, Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and the first [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush]] began attaching their own interpretations of [[statute]]s to what they signed into [[law]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | What did the [[framers]] of the [[Constitution]] do? They insisted that all notes and viewpoints be destroyed at the end of the [[constitution]]al convention. They did not want any “[[legislative]] [[history]]” to influence the interpretation of the [[Constitution]] itself. Only [[James Madison]] preserved his notes, which were not published until many decades later. |
| | + | |
| | + | Several on the [[Supreme Court]], such as [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]], feel that [[legislative]] [[history]] should have no influence in interpreting a [[statute]]. The text of the [[statute]] alone should define its meaning. What do you think? |
| | + | |
| | + | ==V. [[Congress]]ional [[Power]]s== |
| | + | |
| | + | Now we turn to [[Congress]], beginning with the [[power]]s that the [[Constitution]] gives it. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Tax]]ing [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can [[tax]] either to raise [[revenue]] or to [[regulation|regulate]] an activity. Some [[tax]]es are designed to discourage sales, such as [[tax]]es on [[gasoline]] and [[cigarette]]s. Neither [[Congress]] nor the [[state]]s can [[tax]] [[exports]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | Spending [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can spend [[money]] on any public purpose. Virtually any spending can be considered “for the common defense and general [[welfare]].” However, [[Congress]] may not regulate the general [[welfare]] independent of spending. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Commerce]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] to regulate all [[interstate]] and foreign [[commerce]]. [[Congress]] may regulate any activity that has an effect on [[interstate]] [[commerce]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[War]] [[Power]]s: [[Congress]] alone declares [[war]] and establishes and supports the [[military]]. [[Congress]] may also make rules for [[military]] [[court]]s, over which [[federal]] [[court]]s have no general authority. [[Congress]] can impose economic [[regulation]]s (e.g., controls on [[wage]]s and [[price]]s of [[goods]]) during [[war]]time. |
| | + | |
| | + | Property [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] over all [[federal]] [[land]]s and [[property]], of which there is a great deal. [[Congress]] also runs the [[District of Columbia]], which is not in any [[state]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Intellectual property|Intellectual Property]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the [[law]]s for [[patent]]s, [[copyright]]s and [[trademark]]s, which are called “[[intellectual property|Intellectual Property]]” because they are abstract products of [[intelligence]] rather than physical [[property]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Bankruptcy]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes uniform [[bankrupt]]cy laws for the [[nation]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | Postal [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes and runs the [[United States Postal Service|U.S. Post Office]]. No competition is allowed unless [[Congress]] agrees to it (as it did for expensive overnight services like [[Federal Express]]) |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Money]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] coins [[money]] and also sets standards for [[weight]]s and [[measure]]s. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Citizen]]ship [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can exclude [[alien]]s and determine the procedures for people to become [[citizen]]s. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Admiralty]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the [[law]]s for the [[sea]]s. |
| | + | |
| | + | What’s left? [[Congress]] can also expand its authority under these [[power]]s with the “[[Necessary and Proper Clause]],” also known as the “[[elasticity|Elastic]] Clause.” [[Congress]] can make any [[law]] that is proper for executing any [[power]] granted to any part of [[government]], not just [[Congress]]. But there must be an underlying, specific grant of [[power]] in addition to the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]]. For example, [[Congress]] could not pass [[law]]s establishing local [[police]] departments because there is no grant of [[power]] to the [[federal]] [[government]] in that area. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==VI. How [[Law]]s are Made== |
| | + | |
| | + | The basic process for passing [[federal]] [[law]] is as follows: A [[committee]] in the [[House of Representatives]] drafts a new [[statute]]. If the [[committee]] approves the [[bill]], then it is sent to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] Rules [[Committee]], which will dictate the rules for debate and [[amendment]] by the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]] prior to a [[vote]]. If it ultimately passes the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]], it then proceeds to a [[committee]] in the [[Senate]], which may revise it before approving or rejecting it. If the [[Senate]] [[committee]] approves it, perhaps in revised form, then it goes to the full [[Senate]] for passage. [[Amendment]]s may be proposed by any [[senator]], and any [[senator]] may try to block by a [[vote]] by arguing indefinitely (this is known as a [[filibuster]]). In the [[Senate]], 60 [[vote]]s are necessary to end a [[filibuster]] and force a final [[vote]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | If it passes the [[Senate]], then it is compared to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] version. If they were identical, then it proceeds directly to the [[president]] for approval or rejection. But if the House and [[Senate]] versions are different, then it must go to a specially appointed [[Joint Committee|joint committee]] representing both [[chambers]]. They attempt to resolve the differences and present an identical version for new approval by the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]]. If the revised version is approved by both the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]], it then goes to the [[president]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | If the [[president]] signs the [[bill]] in ten (10) days (excluding [[Sunday]]s), or fails to return it without a signature and [[Congress]] is in session, then it becomes [[law]]. If the [[president]] [[veto]]es the [[bill]], or fails to return it in ten (10) [[day]]s (excluding [[Sunday]]s) and [[Congress]] is no longer in session (the “[[pocket veto]]”), then it does not become [[law]]. (A famous example of the [[pocket]] [[veto]] was [[President]] [[Lincoln]]’s refusal to sign his own [[political parties|Party]]’s Wade-Davis [[Bill]] in 1864, which would have imposed harsh penalties on [[Confederate]] officials.) [[Congress]] may attempt to override any type of [[veto]], but it needs 2/3 approval in both the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]] to do so. See [[Article I]], Section 7, clause 2 (p. 320). |
| | + | |
| | + | Overrides of [[veto]]es were very rare prior to [[President]] [[Andrew Johnson]]. Only three [[president]]s have been overridden ten or more times: [[President]]s [[Andrew Johnson]], [[Harry Truman]] and [[Gerald Ford]]. The reason is simple: each faced a [[Congress]] that was dominated by the opposing political party. [[Republican]] President [[Reagan]] [[veto]]ed 78 [[bill]]s of [[Congress]], but was only overridden nine times. That is remarkable given his principled positions and the overwhelming [[Democrat]]ic control of the [[House of Representatives]] during his presidency. |
| | + | The [[Republican]]-controlled [[House_of_Representatives|House]] voted to override President [[Clinton]]’s [[veto]] of the ban on [[partial-birth abortion]], but the [[Senate]] lacked the 2/3rd majority required. It was not until [[President Bush]] was [[elected in 2000 and the [[Republican]]s captured the [[Senate]] in 2002 that now it appears this [[bill]] will be enacted into [[law]]. With [[George W. Bush|Bush]] agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in [[Congress]] to enact it. |
| | + | |
| | + | == States Determine Election Procedures == |
| | + | |
| | + | Under the Constitution, [[State]]s determine the procedures for [[election|electing]] their [[congress]]men. State law sets the primary dates on which each political party picks its nominee for the general election in November. If neither candidate receives more than 50% on [[Election Day]], then some States require “run-offs” before declaring a victor, while other States simply declare the candidate who won a plurality to be the victor. |
| | + | |
| | + | For example, if John Smith received 48% and Mary Doe procured 47%, and minor party [[candidate]]s totaled 5%, then a run-off would feature an election between only John Smith and Mary Doe a few weeks later. With only two candidates on the ballot for the run-off, then at least one will win a majority of the vote. |
| | + | |
| | + | States that do not utilize “run-off” elections would simply declare John Smith the winner, despite his failure to receive 50% of the [[vote]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | In our [[president]]ial [[election]]s, the Constitution does not provide for a run-off. Many presidents have won without ever receiving a majority of the votes cast by the American public, but they receive a majority of the votes cast by the [[Electoral College]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | When there is no run-off, occasionally (but rarely) a candidate can win because his opponents split their vote. Two examples of [[president]]s who because of vote-splitting are [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and [[George W. Bush]] in 2000) |
| | + | |
| | + | A senator who won due to vote-splitting was conservative James Buckley in [[New York]] in 1970. But victories due to vote-splitting is quite rare. |
| | | | |
| | == Homework == | | == Homework == |
| | | | |
| | # May communities lawfully create their own currency (money) in the United States as competition to dollar bills? Include a discussion of the Constitution in your answer. | | # May communities lawfully create their own currency (money) in the United States as competition to dollar bills? Include a discussion of the Constitution in your answer. |
| − | | + | # Why do you think Constitution Day is not celebrated as much as perhaps it should be in recent years? |
| − | (suggested questions are welcome)
| + | # Do you think having Stephen Colbert testify before a Congressional committee makes a mockery of the institution? |
| − | | |
| − | Question suggestion: "Why do you think Constitution Day is not celebrated as much as perhaps it should be in recent years?"
| |
| − | Question suggestion: "Do you think having Stephen Colbert testify before a Congressional committee makes a mockery of the institution?"
| |