The Beacon Spotlight: Issue 1; Republican Form of Government

7/30/2019 The Beacon Spotlight: Issue 1; Republican Form of Government

1/12

A quick look to the U.S. Constitution confirmsat least the fundamental basis of the proposition that

"Government is power".

For example,Article III, Section 1 details:

"The judicial Powerof the United States,

shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in

such inferior Courts as the Congress may from

time to time ordain and establish..."

Article II, Section 1 likewise proclaims:

"The executive Powershall be vested in a

President of the United States of America..."

Article I, Section 1 further declares:

"All legislative Powersherein granted shallbe vested in a Congress of the United States,which shall consist of a Senate and House of

Representatives."

An additional look into a few enumerated powersof Congress helps prove the charge that governmentis all about power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, for

example, declares in part that:

"The Congress shall have PowerTo layand collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,to pay the Debts and provide for the common

Defence and general Welfare of the United

States."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 declares that:

"The Congress shall have Power...To regulateCommerce with foreign Nations, and among the

several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 proclaims that:"The Congress shall have Power...To

declare War, grant Letters of Marque andReprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures

on Land and Water."

Government, then, is power but toward whatpurpose?

As acknowledged within our Declaration ofIndependence, men have unalienable Rights endowedby our Creator, including the Right to Life, Liberty,

and the pursuit of Happiness.

Governments are specifically instituted amongmen, as told by our Declaration, "to Secure theserights", and not to trample over them. The purposeof Government is to then protect our rights, not tobe the greatest transgressor of them.

Left unchecked, government power is antitheticalto man's rights. As such, one would expect stronglimitations on American government to protectagainst destroying its very purpose, so the end is notsacrificed to the means.

A Study of Constitutional Issues by Topic

SpotLigh

Public Domain (no copyright). 2010

Distributed by: The Foundation For Liberty www.FoundationForLiberty.org

"The Essence of Government is Power"James Madison

While government may be all about power,its explicit purpose is to secure man's

unalienable (inalienable) rights.

Issue 1: Republican Form of Government


2/12The Beacon SpotLight: Issue 1: Page 2

Though the Constitution grants Power togovernment, Americans with expectations of findingexpress limitations on government power within theConstitution will not be disappointed.

One of the most powerful constitutional

protections is found inArticle IV, Section 4 of theU.S. Constitution which declares, in part:

"The United States shall guarantee to every

State in this Union a Republican Form of

Government."

ARepublican Form of Government is representativegovernment, where laws are enacted by legislativemembers operating within their powers as delegated bythe very citizens whom they were elected to represent.

The Declaration of Independence lists many factsto prove the King of Great Britain was "unfit to be theruler of a free people".

Foremost among the Declaration's list of abusesand usurpations was of the king pressing the Americancolonists to "relinquish the right of Representation inthe Legislature". The Declaration held Representationin the Legislature to be a "right inestimable to them"and the king's call for relinquishment was "formidableto tyrants only".

The 1774 Declaration of Rights (issued by the firstContinental Congress) stated:

That the foundation of English liberty, and ofall free government, is a right in the people to

participate in their legislative council.

From the explicit constitutional guarantee of aRepublican form of Government, to the Declaration'sinsistence of this inestimable right of free people, tothe 1774 Declaration that people participating in theirlegislative council is the very foundation of liberty and

free government, one dare not overlook thefundamental importance of legislative representation.

In that even a quick glance at our foundingdocuments produced a curtailing effect to the tenetthat government is power, a further look is in order.

A simple compare and contrast between Articles I,II and III detailed earlier show a fundamentaldifference between Article I (legislative) and Articles II& III (executive and judicial, respectively).

As earlier covered, the Constitution unequivocallyvested thejudicialPower in the Courts and vested theexecutivePower in a President of the United States ofAmerica (each of these separate Powers were vestedcompletely in their respective branches).

However, conspicuously absent is a similarcomprehensive investment of the legislativePower with

the Congress. To properly understand the limitednature of our federal government, one mustcomprehend this critical difference.

It is important to note that only afewlegislativePowers, individually-enumerated and herein granted,were vested with the Congress, rather than the wholelegislative Power.

Notably, Article I does NOT declare (in similarfashion to Articles II and III):

"The legislative Power shall be vested in a

Congress."

Article I actually details:

"All legislative Powers herein grantedshallbe vested in a Congress."

To repeat, ONLY the individually-enumeratedlegislative Powers "herein granted" were vested inCongress and NOT the whole legislative Power in anyunified and complete sense (note the use of the pluralform of Powers used in Article I, rather than Power

as used in Articles II and III).Though the word All in Article I appears inclusive,

words of limitation (herein granted) follow. The neteffect is to excludeall other powers not therein granted.

Another way of stating "Alllegislative Powersherein grantedshall be vested in a Congress" is "Onlythe legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested ina Congress".

The express acknowledgement that the enumeratedpowers were "granted" to Congress in the first place

further and explicitly recognizes that there must besome other entity or individual, or a number of otherentities or individuals, who grant(s) this power.

This principle is confirmed in the Constitution byArticle VII, Clause 1which reads:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine

States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment ofthis Constitution between the States so ratifying

the Same."

Republican Form of Government


3/12

The separate States, when they individually ratifiedthe Constitution, ceded specified legislative powersover to the Congress of the United States of America.

Further, this express limitation of the grant oflegislative powers to include only the powers specificallygranted therein acknowledges that the legislative powerwhich was notgranted to Congress is located elsewhere

(as later explicitly detailed in the 10th

Amendment).

Article Vcovers the process of amending theConstitution. It reads, in part:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of bothHouses shall deem it necessary, shall proposeAmendments to this Constitution, or, on the

Application of the Legislatures of two thirds ofthe several States, shall call a Convention forproposing Amendments, which, in either Case,shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as

Part of this Constitution, when ratified by theLegislatures of three fourths of the severalStates, or by Conventions in three fourths

thereof."

Article V shows there are two methods formodifying the Constitution. In the first mechanism,Congress, with sufficient numbers, may (only) proposeamendments. These proposed amendments are thensent to the State legislatures for debate and possibleratification.

The second mechanism allows for two-thirds of theState legislatures to call for a convention for proposingamendments. Any proposed amendments of such aconstitutional convention would be debated and perhapsratified by the individual State ratifying conventions.

As one can plainly see, only the States themselveshave the authority to decide the ultimate powersprovided or allowed the United States. Only the Statesratified the Constitution and only the States may ratify

Amendments. It is important to realize therefore thatthe several States are theprincipalto the contractwhich is the Constitution; the United Statesgovernment is but the agent. The United Statesgovernment is the State's agent for dealing with theissues detailed within the Constitution.

The individual States acting together created theUnited States and the individual States acting togetherdetermine the extent of powers allowed the UnitedStates.

Of course, that the States ultimately control theUnited States is backwards from common understanding that the United States essentially dictate to theStates. Without the States, there are no United States.

Since the States ratified the Constitution and ratifyall amendments (additional grants or limitations onpower), the States clearly have at least some of the

residual legislative authority.This principle is explicitly confirmed by the Tenth

Amendment, which plainly declares:

"The powers not delegated to the UnitedStates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people."

All legislative powers besides those listed in theConstitution remain with the States or within thepeople at large.

In discussing the powers granted to the Congressof the United States, one must thoroughly understandthat phrase, as well as the proper relationship betweenthe separate States and the United States.

Article I, Section 1 earlier discussed provides thatAll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested ina Congress of the United States.

At first glance, it is perhaps natural to think ofCongress as but one of three entities of the federalgovernment (along with the executive and judicialbranches). If one misunderstands Congress as but anentity, however, one may easily misunderstand the veryrelationship between the States and the United States.

Literally and most properly, the Congress of theUnited States of America is NOT an "entity" but firstand foremost a "meeting" or an "event".

This is perhaps easiest understood by looking atsome of our country's organic documents forclarification. If one looks at the Bill of Rights, forexample, one finds that it commences with thefollowing words:

"Congress of the United States, begun andheld at the City of New-York, on Wednesday theFourth of March, one thousand seven hundred

and eighty nine."

The Beacon SpotLight: Issue 1: Page

Congress of the United States


4/12

To better understand Congress, concentrate onthe phrase "Congressbegun and held". If oneunderstands "Congress" to mean an entity, then theBill of Rights does not make sense, for "Congress" asan entity cannot "begin and (be) held", for an "entity"cannot be "held".

An "event", in contrast, can "begin" and can alsobe "held". One can say "eventbegun and held" andhave it make sense. Variations on that thought alsomake sense: "meetingbegun and held"; "meeting ofthe United States, begun and held"; "Congress of theUnited States, begun and held" (when "Congress"means "meeting").

The Bill of Rights is a (joint) resolution ofCongress, which is worded where the rubber meets the

road as are all other legislative resolutions: "Resolved,by the Senate and House of Representatives of theUnited States of America, in Congress assembled"

One must not overlook the meaning andimportance of the phrase "in Congress assembled"within every resolution.

Every legislative act enacted by the members ofCongress is worded and styled similarly: "Be itEnacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America, in Congressassembled"

Every legislative act and every legislative resolutionconfirms that the Senators and Representatives of theseveral States assembletogether in a Congress of all theStates (assembletogether in a meeting of the States,meettogether in an assembling of the States)and passlaws within the authority ceded by every State asevidenced by the U.S. Constitution.

Congress, assembly, and meeting are inter-changeable words signifying a congregating together inlegislative session of the significant parties which arethe united States, the United States of America.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 of the Constitutionconfirms the literal meaning of Congress as ameeting

of the States when it declares:

"The Congress shall assemble at least oncein every Year, and such Meeting shall be on thefirst Monday in December, unless they shall by

Law appoint a different Day."

"Such Meeting" refers directly back to "Congress".The Constitution here directly refers to Congress as aMeeting, which is the correct view of the term.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 discusses a "Session ofCongress" and the "sitting" of both Houses (in aSession or Meeting).

If Congress was but an entity, the singular personalpronoun "it" would be used when referring back toCongress within the same sentence. One shouldnotice that the Constitution uses a third-personpersonal pronoun when referencing Congress, however.This helps show Congress not as an individual entity,but as legislative members assembled together in ameeting of the States.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, for example,includes the details that:

"The actual Enumeration shall be madewithin three Years after the first Meeting of theCongress of the United Statesin such Manner

as they shall by Law direct."

Using "they" in the clause as the pronoun referringback to Congress helps to show Congress as a group oflegislative members of the States rather than an entityof its own accord.

The Beacon SpotLight: Issue 1: Page 4


5/12

InArticle I, Section 4, Clause 2, the Constitutionsimilarly directs that:

"The Congress shall assembleon the first

Monday in December, unless they shall by Law

appoint a different Day."

Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 indicates that if the

President does not return a bill within ten Days, thatthe same shall be a law:

"unless the Congress, by their Adjournment

prevent its Return."

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that:

"Congress may by Law vest the Appointment

of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, inthe President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in

the Heads of Departments."

Article II, Section 3 includesthe detail that the President shall:

"give to the CongressInformation of the State of the Union, andrecommend to their Consideration suchMeasures as he shall judge necessary and

expedient."

These examples help people understand Congressas a meeting of the States, rather than as an entity of

its own power and volition. Thinking in terms of"(members of) Congress are" rather than "Congressis" helps reinforce such concept.

The Constitution does point once to a singularconcept of Congress, in Article I, Section 1 when itstates that all legislative Powers shall be "vested in aCongress of the United States of America". It istherefore not necessarily improper to use this singularconcept of a Congress, provided one understands itliterally as "a meeting of the United States of America".

Part of the difficulty in grasping the properunderstanding of the relationship of Congress and theStates stems from the pervasive misunderstanding ofthe phrase "the United States" itself.

This phrase "United States", as used in theConstitution, is also a plural term, as in "these UnitedStates are" and is not a singular term, as in "theUnited States is"

This concept, regarding the United States, is ofgreat and fundamental importance, for it strikes at thevery heart of government acting with apparentdisregard for the Constitution. To understand howgovernment appears to expand powers beyond the

Constitution, it is imperative to first understand theconcept of the United States as a plural term.

The United States as a plural concept is mucheasier to understand if one thinks "the united States"without the "u" in "United" capitalized (to hold it asan adjective modifying the noun, rather than as aproper noun). It was in such form that the Declarationof Independence was actually styled: "The unanimousDeclaration of the thirteen united States of America".

Not only did the Declaration of Independencediscuss the concept ofmanyUnited States; so too didthe 11thAmendmentto the Constitution:

"The judicial Power of the United States shallnot be construed to extend to any suit in Law orEquity, commenced or prosecuted against one of

the United States by Citizens of another State, orby Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

The 11thAmendment, that amendment whichstands squarely at odds with the concept that theConstitution is whatever the majority of the supreme

Court declare that it is1, clearly discusses the conceptof a plurality of United States, when its refers to "oneof the United States".

The idea that "these United States are..."; that the

United States represent a plurality, is perhapsconfusing, but is of vital importance. Every instancewhere the Constitution indicates word form for thephrase "the United States" indicates a plural term.


The United States

1. The 11th Amendment overturned the 1793 supremeCourt's ruling on the jurisdictional limitations of Article III,Section 2, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S.419 (1793). Thus, it is evident that the States hold thefinal authority on the ultimate meaning of the Constitution.


6/12

For instance,Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by theUnited States: And no Person holding any Office

of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without theConsent of the Congress, accept of any present,Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,

from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The plural pronoun "them" in the Clause refersback to "the United States", to the States united underthe Constitution. The States in their separatecapacities were prevented from granting Titles ofNobility separately in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1,so Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 was not referring tothe several States in their individual capacities.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 declares, in part:

"The judicial Power shall extend totheLaws of the United States, and Treaties made, or

which shall be made, under their authority."

Since individual States are specifically preventedfrom entering treaties (again, by Article I, Section 10,Clause 1), this reference to "their" cannot possiblyrefer to the States in their separate capacities.

The 13thAmendmentshows the plural nature ofthe term even more clearly:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,except as a punishment for crime whereof the

party shall have been duly convicted, shall existwithin the United States, or any place subject to

their jurisdiction."

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 provides thesimplest, most direct example of the United States as aplural term, of the States united together. It reads, inpart:

"Treason against the United States, shall

consist only in levying War against them, or inadhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and

Comfort."

The United States is a plural term, as clearlysignified by the use of the plural pronoun "them" andthe possessive plural pronoun "their" in every instancewithin the Constitution where word form wasindicated. The use of plural pronouns helps show thecollective meaning of the United States to mean theStates united together, rather than a singular entity ofits own volition.

It should be noted that the Constitution does use thesingular personal pronoun "it" when it refers back to asingular entity. In each of three instances in Article I,Section 5, Clauses 1-3 where the Constitutionreferences "each House", for example, the Constitutionuses the singular possessive personal pronoun "its" torefer to "its" members and "its" proceedings.

Also, inArticle I, Section 10, Clause 2, theConstitution declares, in part, that:

"No State shall, without the Consent of theCongress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports

or Exports, except what may be absolutely

necessary for executing it's inspection Laws."2

Article Vfurther declares that:

"no State, without its Consent, shall be

deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."2

These examples show that personal pronouns wereused properly; "it" was used in the possessive case of asingular entity (State and each House of Congress),and "they", "them" and "their" were used in the pluraland possessive cases when referring to members ofCongress and the States united together.

Today, there are 50 States united together underthe Constitution to promote their common defenseand general welfare. The States send their electeddelegates, their U.S. Senators and Representatives, tomeet together in a Congress of all the States and enactlaws of mutual benefit under the powers delegated bythe Constitution.

Viewed in this manner, the idea that the federalgovernment can act in defiance to the States anddictate to them loses traction. Without the States,there are no United States.

When the States meet together in a Congress, theyhave their rule book which is the U.S. Constitution to

abide by, which is a collection of the powers that theStates individually ceded over to the States actingcollectively together.


2. The Constitution has a few scribner's errors, includinghere using it's with an apostrophe rather than simply"its" without the apostrophe.

An apostrophe is only properly used in this instance as acontraction for "it has" or "it is". Its without anapostrophe shows possession.


7/12

Looking at the Constitution, one will find thatArticle I, the Article covering the Legislative branch,takes up over half of all the words of the originally-ratified Constitution. In contrast, the Executivebranch has fewer than one-fourth the words; while the

Judicial branch has less than one-tenth.

That the framers spent so much time on theLegislative branch shows they clearly understood thepower of Republican government to be centered there.

James Madison's comment in The Federalist #51sums up the principle well:

"In republican government, the legislative

authority necessarily predominates."

Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution

details the process by which every legislative bill mustpass before it become a Law. It reads, in thepertinent portion "Every Billwhich shall have passedthe House and Representatives and the Senate, shall,before it become a Law, be presented to the Presidentof the United States" and goes through a number ofscenarios, depending upon whether or not thePresident signs the bill.

Clause 2 continues with the process of enacting abill overriding the President's veto, and it also covers

the process followed if the President fails to act on thebill. This latter process is important, for it clearlydeclares the status of such a bill when it doesn't get theproper attention it requires and Congress adjourns,stating "in which Case it shall not be a Law".

"In which Case it shall not be a Law" is a verypowerful phrase and very powerful principle. "It shallnot be a Law"; even a Bill properly passed (thus far) byboth Houses of Congress fails to be a Law if it doesntultimately complete the proper process within proper

time restraints. Obviously, the Constitution is very stricton what shall be a Law and what shall not be a Law.

The legislative power is the power to enact law.Given that the Constitution specifically vests Congresswith enumerated legislative Powers and given thatmembers of Congress have no ability to change theConstitution, then it necessarily follows that it isoutside Congress' discretion and ability to delegatesuch legislative power to others.

The Constitution treats the Legislative branch ofgovernment fundamentally different from theExecutive and Judicial branches. These branches ofgovernment are structurally different and are NOTinterchangeable.

The Legislative branch of the United States isdirectly related to the State governments. Properly

elected Representatives of the States meet together in aCongress of the States and pass laws within theirauthority. In contrast, the Executive and Judicialbranches of the United States have no direct tie to theseveral States, but contain offices of the United States.

People who work in the Executive and Judicialbranches are government officers holding governmentoffices, and have no part in creating law (other than

the President who is charged with approving or vetoingLegislative bills, recommending measures, etc.).

The Constitution acknowledges that persons in theExecutive branch are officerswho hold offices.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 provides that:

"The executive Power shall be vested in aPresident of the United States of America. He

shall hold his Office during the Term of four

Years..."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 details thequalifications for the "Office of President".

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 provides thesequence for presidential succession, in case of "theRemoval of the President from Office" or of his"Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of thesaid Office".

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 mandates thePresident take the following oath or affirmation Before

he enter on the Execution of his Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I willfaithfully execute the Office of President of theUnited States, and will to the best of my Ability,

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of

the United States."

Article I, Section 3, Clause 5 acknowledges thatthe Vice-President will, in succession of the President,"exercise the Office of President of the United States".


The Legislative Power

Executive and Judicial Officers


8/12

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 recognizes thatexecutive workers are officersholdingoffices:

"The Presidentmay require the Opinion, in

writing, of the principal Officer in each of theexecutive Departments, upon any Subject

relating to the Duties of their respective Offices..."

Judges also hold offices. Article III, Section 1

provides that "The Judgesshall hold their Officesduring good Behavior". Section 1 also details that:

"The Judgesshallreceivea

Compensation, which shall not be diminished

during their Continuance in Office."

In stark opposition, the legislative branch hasMemberswho hold legislative Seats. LegislativeMembers are not Officers. Legislative Seats are not

Offices. The difference is fundamental; do notunderestimate this important principle which properlyenforces critical separation of powers.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 acknowledges that:

"The House of Representatives shall be

composed of Members..."

The House...shall be composed ofMemberswhat further proof does one need to understand that theHouse of Representatives is composed ofMembers not

Officers than these clear words of the Constitution?Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 tells us that the

Senate is composed ofSenators; several other clausesinform us that Senators are only a subset ofMembers.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 declares that:

"Each House shall be the Judgeof its ownMembers, andmay be authorized to compel

the Attendance of absent Members..."

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 repeats the principle

that both Houses of Congress are composed ofMembers:"Each House may determine the Rules of its

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderlyBehavior, and, with the Concurrence of two

thirds, expel a Member."

Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 states again that:

"Each House shall keep a Journal of itsProceedingsand the Yeas and Nays of the

Membersshallbe entered on the Journal."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 directs that shouldthe electoral system fail to elect a President, then thechoice shall go to the House of Representatives, aquorum of which shall consist of a "Member orMembers from two thirds of the States."

Article VI, Clause 3 requires oaths or affirmationsto support the Constitution before legislative members

take their seats or executive or judicial officers enter onthe execution of their offices. Clause 3 states, in part:

"The Senators and Representatives beforementioned, and the Members of the severalState Legislatures, and all executive and judicialOfficers, both of the United States and of the

several States, shall be bound by Oath or

Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Article VI, Clause 3 accurately separates legislativemembersof both the States and the United States, andthe executive and judicial officers(both of the Statesand the United States), to be bound by oath oraffirmation to support the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 likewise accuratelyseparates Senators and Representatives from a Personholding an Office of Trust or Profit under the UnitedStates from being appointed an Elector.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 2 acknowledges thatSenators hold legislative seatsrather than offices,stating, in part, that:

"The Seats of the Senators of the first Classshall be vacated at the Expiration of the secondyear..."

Finally,Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 contains thefollowing definitive prohibition, which proves beyonddoubt that Membersand Officersare polar opposites:

"no Person holding any Office under the

United States, shall be a Member of either

House during his Continuance in Office."

This powerful clause ensures a Republican Form of

government. It precludes any person holding anyoffice under the United States from being a member ofeither House during his continuance in office.

Since no officer of the United States can be amember of Congress, then the corollary holds true; nolegislative member can concurrently hold any officeunder the United States. No Member is thus ever anofficer(except House officers such as the Speaker ofthe House, etc.).


Legislative Members


9/12

A Republican Form of Government is having duly-elected legislative members enact laws within theirpowers. One can see that the Constitution forbids any(executive or judicial) officer of the United States fromholding any legislative authority. Their very essence ofbeing an officer precludes them from holding anylegislative power whatsoever, the power to enact law.

Executive officers execute (administer) laws enactedby Congress while judicial officers rule on issues ordisagreements brought before them according to law.

Most every American today mistakenly believesthat Congressmen are officers who hold offices. Theidea that members of Congress could perhaps beconsidered officers in some sense of the word came upwhen Thomas Jefferson was Vice President of theUnited States under President John Adams. Thismattered in the pertinent case as to whether a member

of Congress could be impeached in accordance withArticle II, Section 4, which states that:

"The President, Vice President, and all civilOfficers of the United States, shall be removedfrom Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction

of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and

Misdemeanors."

It is important to realize that Article I, Section 5,Clause 2 provides:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderlyBehaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two

thirds, expel a Member."

Obviously, if a Senator could be impeached by theHouse of Representatives, then an entity besides theSenate could punish the Senate's Members for"disorderly Behaviour". Of importance in this casewas whether or not each House determines its ownorder. In a broader sense, either the clauses in theConstitution have meaning, or they don't.

In the pertinent case, Jefferson, as Vice President ofthe United States, served as President of the Senateduring the impeachment trial of Senator WilliamBlount. Senator Blount was expelled by the Senate andwas also impeached by the House of Representatives.

The question as to whether the House ofRepresentatives had authority to impeach a Senatorwas brought up immediately and before impeachment.

It was decided in the House that the question as towhether or not they had power to impeach a Senatorcould only be "ripe" for consideration if there weresufficient votes to impeach Blount (if there wereinsufficient votes to impeach, then it wouldn't matterif they had the authority or not).

Thus, the House voted on whether or not Senator

Blount deserved impeachment and the vote succeeded.Argument then went to the Senate to try the case,which immediately turned on whether the House hadauthority to impeach a Senator.

Senator Blount's only defense was that "a Senator isnot an officer of the United States; and that no personsbut the President, Vice President and civil officers areliable, by the Constitution, to impeachment".3

The House Manager (James Bayard) prosecutingthe impeachment trial admitted his daunting challenge

but nevertheless centered his creative argument thusly:"Now, it is clear thata Senator is not an officerunderthe Government of the United States, but stillhe may be an officer ofthe United States"4 and thusimpeachable under Article II, Section 4.

The Senate, sitting under oath as a court ofimpeachment, ruled against this argument and againstimpeachment, holding that members of Congress areneither officers under the government of the UnitedStates nor officers of the United States.

This matter, as to whether Senators andRepresentatives are officers, is of great importance, forif legislative members could be thought of as officers insome sense of the word, then it would be less of astretch to think that (executive) officers could actsomewhat equally as legislative members and couldtherefore enact law or that held as law.

Recall that only enumerated legislative powers weregranted to Congress. Realize also that Article I has awhole section (Section 9) dedicated to further expresslimitations on the legislative power. Remember thatthere are far fewer words in the Constitution coveringthe executive branch as compared with the legislative,so if the executive branch could somehow enact law


3. Vol. 8, Annals of Congress, Senate, pg. 2245; seealso, The Beacon of Liberty, Volume I, Issue 10).www.FoundationForLiberty.org/Beacon.htm .

4. Ibid, pg. 2251.


10/12

even without an express grant of authority, then therewould be few express limitations on it. With fewerlimitations, it could be made more powerful than thelegislative branch, under the false premise that theexecutive would have all authority except what isexpressly forbidden him.

A Republican Form of Government is guaranteed

to every State of the Union. A Republican Form ofGovernment is representative government, agovernment where elected legislativerepresentativesenact laws within their powers.

Americans interested in limited government mustrealize that the Congress must make ALL Laws underthe Constitution. Anything held as law coming fromthe Executive branch (other than reprieves andpardons, etc.) must be held as suspect and criticallyanalyzed to find out what is truly being authorized and

what is improperly being held as assumption.King George III sought to force the American

colonists to "relinquish the right of Representation inthe Legislature", a right they held "inestimable". TheAmerican colonists rebelled against such tyranny andheld it as their right and their duty to throw off anysuch Government which limited true Representationand to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Today, Americans are being told they have to abideby mountains of administrative "law" "enacted" by

Executive Agencies being run by appointed bureaucratswho were never elected to represent any constituents.

That Executive Agencies seek to bypass legislativeaction completely and "enact" administrative "law" isnot a Republican form of government. TheConstitution declares that even bills passed by bothHouses of Congress "shall not be a Law" if they fail tocomplete the full enactment process; clearly, that whichbypasses Congress completely can never "be a Law" inthese United States of America.

Neither in a Republican Form of Government is itlegitimate to have a process in which a "rough outline"is enacted by Congress; to then have the administrativeagencies fill in all the pertinent regulations by whichevery Citizen must live.

Today, we hear of administrative "czars" runningentire economies without oversight, making unilateraldecisions which will impact nationwide commerce forgenerations to come.

Are we truly living under the American equivalentof czarist Russia?

Do the United States grant such power to anappointed official?

Given the extensive regulation of business and theeconomy today by the alphabet agencies andindependent establishments of the federal government

(EPA, FTC, SEC, etc.), perhaps it is reasonable forAmericans today to question the seemingly radicalproposition that only Congress can enact laws whichaffect every American.

The Constitution thankfully provides even furtherclarification for those persons who doubt their ownability to understand its clear words.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 provides that:

The Congress shall have Power...To make

all Laws which shall be necessary and proper forcarrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,and all other Powers vested by this Constitution

in the Government of the United States, or in anyDepartment or Officer thereof.

Recall that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitutionspecifically invested the President of the United Stateswith the executivepower, the power to execute thelaws enacted by Congress.

As such, maybe it would seem logical that the

President and perhaps his principle officers in each ofthe executive Departments would have discretion toadminister those laws solely under the Presidentsdirection and authority.

Clause 18, however, specifically directs otherwise.The Constitution vests the authority with Congress tomake all Laws for carrying into execution not only theArticle I, Section 8 powers of Congress earlier covered,but all other Powers vested by this Constitution in theGovernment of the United States, or in any Department

or Officer thereof.

This clause shows that neither the President, nor anyof the executive agencies (let alone the IndependentEstablishments of the government), are empowered toexecute any laws, let alone as they see fit.

Clause 18 is brutally clear that Congress shall enactALL Laws for carrying into Execution all powersvested in the Government of the United States.



11/12

Clause 18 then doesnt even allow the ExecutiveDepartments to make any Laws for the execution ofpowers for even one of its Officer(s) thereof, letalone a whole department and certainly not anythingthat would reach private individuals.

Clause 18 speaks ofLawsenacted by Congress.Given todays circumstances, can calling something a

regulation, codeor orderbypass the entire constitutionalprotections the founders envisioned and be institutedby the President or his officers? Emphatically, NO!

Though the Executive and his Departments caninstitute minor measures (only) for themselves, thethought that these rules can reach to individuals isaddressed by our entire form and system ofgovernment. It is thus up to us to learn how we havebecome so lost in our ways.

It should be noted that Congress may not even

enact any law they see fit, but only laws within theirauthority. Should they enact a law in excess of theirauthority, the Constitution acknowledges that such alaw would not have authority of government.

The Constitution declares what shall be the supremeLaw of the Land inArticle VI. Clause 1 declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of theUnited States of America which shall be made inPursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or whichshall be made, under the Authority of the United

States shall be the supreme Law of the Land...The next clause then requires every legislative

member and executive and judicial officer to swear anoath or affirmation to support the Constitution,instilling a duty on these persons to uphold theConstitution and nullify or fail to execute any lawenacted contrary to the Constitution.

Only laws (and Treaties) made in pursuance of theConstitution are a part of the supreme Law of the land.

A law enacted by Congress in excess of theirauthority would not pose any obligation for anyone tofollow it. Further, because of government oaths, suchoaths would instill a duty to each and every persontaking such an oath to work diligently to remove sucha law passed without proper authority.

Few additional laws need be enacted to cure ourills most all the laws we need are already enacted(there is just a whole lot masquerading as law in theseUnited States that needs to be brushed aside).

Legislative members cannot enact any law whichsupersedes their authority under the Constitution.Officers cannot exercise any lawful governmentalpower which contradicts the supreme Law.

Thus, it matters little who is in office or who holdswhich legislative seat when government is properlylimited, for no person can expand beyond the

Constitution except by deception over people who donot comprehend the mechanism of deception.

Our forefathers did not pledge their Lives, theirFortunes, nor their Sacred Honor only to then create asystem of government whereby one was held hostage atevery election cycle or every legislative session.

These truths and our fundamental laws are ourforefather's gift of liberty to us, which we have seenslip though our fingers though our indifference, ourignorance, and our ineptitude.

Article I, Section 32 of theWashington StateConstitution states (in words similar to many otherstate constitutions):

"A frequent recurrence to fundamental

principles is essential to the security of individualright and the perpetuity of free government."

This succinct passage provides at once an indictmentof our problem and suggestion of the cure. We mustfrequently recur back to fundamental principles to

regain individual right and free government.Those who use confusion and deceit to gain power

do not want people to understand how they act withapparent disregard to the constitutional limitations ofgovernment power.

People who use government as a sword to obtainwhat they cannot get on the free market want Americansto think that the Constitution is a dead letter and oflittle meaning (and thus of little use to study).

That proponents of expanded government wanttheir opponents to think in such a fashion thenprovides these persons interested in liberty with anecessary roadmap of what needs to be done; to learnas much as possible about the U.S. Constitution andlimited government, as soon as possible.

One such study-guide is The Beacon of Liberty,available online without charge atwww.FoundationForLiberty.org/Beacon.htm.



12/12

The Declaration of Independence stated that theBritish King had "erected a multitude of New Offices,and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass ourPeople, and eat out their Substance".

Our answer to resolve the swarms of officers in amultitude of offices harassing our people today andeating out our substance should be the same as that

given by our forefathers. We Americans today mustcontinue the fight against such tyranny with our Lives,our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.

One must realize that our forefathers successfullyfought the war of independence. The Declaration ofIndependence was purchased by the brave men whofirst fought on this American soil for liberty.

Limited government took firm root in theseUnited States of America.

Thankfully, the only war that needs to be foughttoday is of the mind. This war is not fought withbullets (in which the decided advantage must go toorganized government with its awe-inspiring commandof force) but with principles, ideas & concepts.

Never before has it been so simple and affordableto disseminate the powerful principles of freedom.Words of liberty can spread across the globe today atthe speed of light. When liberty is awakened within aslumbering nation, watch for unexpected events.

As the fierce grip of expansive government closesever more tightly on increasingly-overwrought citizens,do not be surprised when people who appear about tobe crushed begin slipping through the giants fingertips.

Never before has central government operatingbeyond its rightful authority faced such a powerfuldecentralizing force as the Internet.

In a battle of ideas, do not bet against millions ofself-interested Citizens awakening from the comfort of

their once-safe routines. As various economic, socialand political events force people to begin to scrutinizetheir increasingly-uneasy situations, they may welldevelop a thirst for searing truth and burning justice.

People struggling in worsening conditions are oftenquite receptive in their search for answers. They willlikely be so quick to find answers, in fact, the danger isthey may grasp at half-baked, popular notions basedupon conjecture, false assumptions and speculation.

The need for strong reasoning, rational thought,sound discourse, and careful study is critical when one

is at major crossroads, when the wrong path can leadto impending doom.

The hour is late and the sky is darkening. Many ofour fellow citizens are already standing in a long line tosee the all-powerful wizard in the Emerald City of theEast.

This wizard gets his strength not only by bellowingthunderous, hot air in a forbidding manner with aspectacular sound and light show, but from the longline of people who come before him seeking his favor.

Our job is that of Toto, to sniff out things thatsmell "funny", to investigate thoroughly all claims ofgovernment omnipotence, and to look in every nookand cranny to find the proper curtain to pull back toexpose the wizard of seemingly unlimited powers as thefraud he is.

Government operating in excess of theConstitution loses all credibility when the curtain ispulled back, exposing the dark recesses of treachery to

the light of day.

Those being duped into believing the wizard hadalmighty powers will not again be deceived once thesource of his powerless magic has been revealed.

America can once again be the bright Beacon ofLiberty in a world of darkness and despair, and not apart of it.

Public Domain (no copyright). 2010

Distributed by: The Foundation For Liberty www.FoundationForLiberty.org


The Beacon Spotlight: Issue 1; Republican Form of Government

Documents

Transcript of The Beacon Spotlight: Issue 1; Republican Form of Government