Civics_Ch2_Original-Intent

=**Original Intent of the Constitution**= You will be face with two different scenarios. One scenario shows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. The other shows the changes that came after the original Constitution. See how close you are to what the Founding Fathers originally intended.

__Scenario #1__: The ability to make laws or rules that have the force of a law: Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says that all legislative powers (that means all lawmaking powers) are with the Congress. This means that according to the Constitution, it's the Congress that has the ability to make laws. The Constitution doesn't give bureaus or agencies any rule making power. However, today it's common for bureaus and agencies to make rules that people or businesses have to abide by. For example, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH agency that has to help enforce environmental laws. However, the EPA sometimes makes rules that businesses or people have to follow. *The EPA isn't the only executive branch bureau or agency that does this, but is the example being used. In 2010, the EPA passed new rules that contractors have to follow when remodeling a house and dealing with lead-based paint. The EPA says it's for environmental reasons. In order for contractors to comply they'll have to spend a lot of money to gain the right certifications and would have to spend a lot of money on expensive new equipment. If the contractors didn't comply, they could be fined over $37,000 per day. In order to comply, a business would spend a lot of money. The EPA says this rule is necessary for environmental reasons. A - Congress and ONLY Congress should have the power to make laws. When agencies make rules that have the force of a law (punishments attached) such rules are unconstitutional. B - Bureaus and agencies often need to make regulations or rules the enforce certain laws. Which do you agree with more: A or B?

__Scenario #2__: Regulating commerce/trade One of the problems under the Articles of Confederation was that states argued over trade. One of the biggest examples was Virginia and Maryland arguing over control of the Chesapeake Bay. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. This means that Congress controls trade that is state to state and trade with foreign nations. States handle any commerce that takes place within their state borders. A - Congress can regulate anything that impacts or affects the trade process. B - Commerce is loading the goods, transporting the goods, and then unloading the goods. This is the only part of the process can regulate, not anything that impacts the process. Which do you agree with: A or B?

__Scenario #3__: Federal spending The General Welfare Clause is the claimed source of federal spending. The question is what should the federal government be able to spend money on? A - The Federal government should spend money only in areas where the states weren't competent and all federal spending should benefit all Americans. B - The Federal government should spend money on any area and spending can benefit certain groups of people if the federal government feels it's necessary to do so. Which do you agree with: A or B?

__Scenario #4__: Electing the Congress A - The House of Representatives should be chosen by the people/voters and the Senate should be chosen by the state lawmakers --- half of Congress elected by the people, the other half chosen by the states. B - The House of Representatives AND the Senate both chosen by the voters.

__Scenario #5__: power of the people Popular sovereignty means that American government is based on consent of the governed...the people. Self-government has been important in America since the Pilgrims and the Mayflower Compact. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the people had the power when writing the Constitution. A - The people should vote on all laws and all government actions. B - The people should elect leaders to be the experts on the issues to make political decisions on behalf of the voters. Which do you agree with: A or B?

SCROLL DOWN TO SEE HOW CLOSE YOU WERE TO THE FOUNDERS:











1. The Founding Fathers would've chosen choice A because of the idea of separation of powers - the principle that the powers to make, enforce, and interpret laws is divided into three different branches. Maybe the rule on contractors dealing with lead-based paint is good...maybe it is over burdensome. Nevertheless, it is a rule that has the force of a law because there is punishment for not complying. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution says Congress makes laws. If this rule on contractors is good and necessary, then it's Congress that should pass the law and the punishment - the EPA's job is ONLY to enforce laws passed by Congress. So, how does the EPA get away with this? Congress allows them. The Supreme Court doesn't rule it unconstitutional. Why? It's become political. Many in America, in Congress, and in the courts favor stricter environmental rules. It's tough to get Congress to pass such laws because there is opposition to such rules that hurt businesses and force smaller businesses to have to go out of business because of the expenses. Unfortunately, this is just one example of what takes place a lot from bureaus and agencies in the executive branch. Article 1 Section 1 is one of the most violated parts of the Constitution. Unfortunately, most voters are unaware of this and think that it's normal for bureaus and agencies such as the EPA to make such rules - some voters like some of the rules that some of the agencies make. Unfortunately today, too many voters and politicians are okay with not going word for word what the Constitution says if it's something they like. It's important for voters to have knowledge about what the Constitution says. Many do not. We can either go by the Constitution or not.

2. The Founding Fathers would've chosen B because the Founding Fathers favored limited government. The reason for the Constitution is to bind the powers of the government. If the Founding Fathers wanted the Congress to have the ability to regulate anything that impacts commerce they would've written it that way into the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been the basis for the government to increase it's power. This didn't happen until 1936 when the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to regulate what "directly impacts" commerce. Think about it...if you were told you had the power to control something that impacts trade, that gives you a lot more power than simply controlling the trade process. Who decides what "impacts" commerce? Congress since 1936 has passed numerous regulations on businesses in the name of regulating commerce. Since this 1936 case the power of the federal government has increased significantly over businesses. Keep in mind the problem the Founding Fathers were trying to fix - the states were arguing over control of waterways like Virginia and Maryland quarreling over the Chesapeake Bay. The Founding Fathers weren't looking to control how businesses conducted trade, they merely wanted the federal government to control the waters that bordered multiple states. Letter A gives the government a lot more power than letter B. The Founding Fathers were more interested in limited government. Today, most Americans think it's normal for the federal government to have such power over businesses when Congress passes laws with controls over the business world.

3. The Founding Fathers would've chosen A because the system created by the Constitution is a federal system, one that has a strong central government but the subdivisions (states) have power as well. The federal government wasn't intended to be a "dictator" so to speak over the states. The states were still to have the bulk of the power. The Constitution was meant to fix the weaknesses that America was experiencing under the Articles of Confederation. Federal spending was ONLY to be in areas where the states weren't competent on their own - such as national defense. So what changed? Just like the previous scenario, it was a 1936 Supreme Court case when the Supreme Court ruled that federal spending could be on anything that the federal government felt was necessary even beyond what the Constitutional powers of the federal government were. Ever since this 1936 case, federal spending has gone up every year. Today, our debt is out of control as America is trillions of dollars in debt. How does this happen? Politicians promise spending in certain areas for voters...voters then vote for those politicians - if a politician promises you money or stuff paid for by taxes as long as you vote for that politician, it's very appealing. The bulk of any spending was to be state by state. The states would handle matters differently based on needs in their state. Take education/schools for example. The states are each competent enough to handle education on their own. Each state has different needs when it comes to education. However, the federal government not only spends a lot on education today, the federal government has control over the schools in each state....if the federal government is giving the states money for education, the federal government will demand that the states follow certain guidelines that the federal government mandates. There are a lot of other examples. Health care is a big one. The federal government passed the health care law that has become a major point of controversy and gives the federal government immense power over the states and the people as a result. The states are perfectly competent enough to handle health care on their own. Same with environmental laws, welfare, unemployment, and numerous other categories. Most Americans today, however, think that it's normal for the federal government to be spending so much money.

4. The Founding Fathers would have chosen A - the people elect the House and the states choose their senators. This was how the original Constitution had it. Why? The Founding Fathers wanted the states to have a check and balance over the federal government. Remember, the states were still to have a bulk of the power in the nation. The Founding Fathers knew that voters have a tendency to vote for politicians that will give them stuff. They wanted to guard against this and so the Senate wouldn't pass laws that weren't good for their states. This type of Congress that was set up made sure that laws that passed benefited the people (since the people elect the House) and the states (since the states choose the Senate). In 1913, the 17th Amendment was put onto the Constitution that changed this. Today (and since 1913), the people elect both the House and the Senate. This seems good since it gives the voters power. The problem is that the Senate become more like the House - running for office by promising voters to spend on things that will benefit the voters even if it's not in the best interest of their individual states. With the Senate now chosen by people, the states no long have a check and balance over the federal government. As a result, the states lost power at the expense of the federal government and today the federal government has a lot more power over the states than it did before this amendment.

5. The Founding Fathers would have chosen B - a republic style of government. Letter A is a democracy...today called a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers favored a republic over a democracy. They realized that full democracy or direct democracy would lead more to mob rule. Madison called it "mobocracy." In this type of democracy the people have the power to vote on everything. This would lead voters to vote for their self-interest....laws and spending that benefit themselves even if not best for the whole nation. In a republic, the people still have the power since the people vote for the leaders, but the leaders make laws and spend money for what's best for the nation. Alexander Tytler said "//A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy//." Unfortunately, this is a major problem in America today.

UNDERSTANDING ORIGINAL INTENT: Click on the link provided to a site that gives numerous articles on original intent of the founders. Once you're on the site, on the top put your cursor on the tab for library - on the drop down menu put your cursor on Issues & Articles - then choose the topic that most interests you, read it, and write a paragraph explanation/reflection on what you read. [|Click here for the site]