Pick the statement below that makes the sentence true.
There is only one correct answer.
"The Constitution of the United States ..."
a. "... requires a complete separation of church and state."
b. "... creates three coequal branches of the federal government."
c. "... limits the federal government to using only those powers which are defined (or implied) by the Constitution."
d. "... gives a minority in the Senate the authority to block Senate action by filibuster."
e. "... provides that the accused shall be tried by a jury of peers."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 02, 2008 06:02 PM | Email ThisCan expound later, just providing requested answer for now...
cheers, Mike
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on January 2, 2008 06:45 PMA - Language is more like the state shall not establish a religion.
C - Congress gets to pass laws, as long as they don't directly conflict with the cons, it's Katie bar the door.
D - Rules of the Senate, I don't even think the filibuster is a law, let alone a part of the cons.
E - I think the cons just requires "due process".
OK, pure feeble memory, let the experts and the researchers tear my recollections apart.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on January 2, 2008 07:11 PMB- no. It created 3 branches of government that have checks and balances but the legislative branch by most constitutional scholars is considered to be more powerful than the other two.
C. No. It is limited only to what is defined in the constitution.
D. No. This is just a procedural rule created by the senate.
E. True - for most trials anyways. I think there may be some exceptions in there for military trials or something but I would have to cheat and look it up.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on January 2, 2008 08:06 PMWith respect to the various answers presented:
(A) The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in different ways by different courts, and is not usually construed as requiring *complete* separation between the government and religion, but rather as requiring all religions to be treated in the same manner. Pragmatically speaking this often requires complete disentanglement, but that's not what the text of the Constitution says.
(B) This one really depends on how you define "coequal". For example, are the branches coequal when the Congress has the power to establish and fund courts, even though the Courts have the ability to overturn Congressional legislation? Which of the two branches comes out on top here?
(C) This is the one I think Pudge is talking about, based on the 10th Amendment and what comes across of his politics in his postings here.
(D) There is no mention of filibuster in the Constitution. I'm pretty sure it was established by the rules and procedures defined by the Senate itself. The first uses of the term seem to date to the mid-1800's.
(E) The Constitution provides only for a speedy trial by an "impartial" jury in the state where the crime was committed. There's no mention of "peers" anywhere in Article III or in the 5th, 6th, or 7th Amendments.
Posted by: Prometheus on January 2, 2008 08:20 PMAdditionally in e) it only grants a right, doesn't require it like in the question.
c) technically isn't a true statement but it's 'more true' than the others.
Posted by: Doug on January 2, 2008 08:30 PMThe problem with C is that pesky parenthetic (or implied). Otherwise it would be right.
D is indeed only a rule.
E is from the Magna Carta.
That leaves only B, but I don't recall the Constitution mentioning anything about equality of the branches - only checks and balances.
Posted by: deadwood on January 2, 2008 08:50 PMGo Willard!
Posted by: Willard's booster on January 2, 2008 08:56 PMSome, like Doug and Travis Pahl, may be thrown off by the use of the parenthetical "or implied," but that is part of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power ... 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."
The word "implied powers" has been used to describe "the necessary and proper" clause for centuries, and the point should be not whether that word fits, but what any word used in this context properly means. If I had said "necessary and proper," we could still quibble over what that actually means (such as whether it includes a national bank).
Note that the words "defined" and "enumerated" also do not appear, in this context, in the Constitution. Of course, that concept is generally less controversial.
So the point is not what word is used, but what the word means: our government is one of "few and defined" powers, as Madison wrote, but it also has additional "implied" powers that are "necessary and proper" for executing the other powers. On this we should all agree: the question is just about what those "implied" powers actually include.
If you still disagree with my use of the word, fine, I don't want to argue that. If you disagree that the Constitution does grant additional "necessary and proper" powers -- whateever that means -- well, then you're wrong. :-)
As to the rest:
"Separation of church and state" is not what the Constitution requires, only a lack of establishment of religion, which is different.
The branches are not coequal. Madison even explicitly stated, in Federalist 51, that the legislative authority predominates. Some sense of coequality is good -- and a goal to be sought -- but it is not what the Constitution created. Nothing in the text of the Constitution or the founding documents implies they are coequal, and on the contrary, it was often stated that the judicial branch was the weakest. Their relative power is in the order they are defined in the Constiution: legislative, executive, judicial.
Also note that "checks and balances" is not in the Constitution or other founding documents, either (except when applying to the bicameral legislature checking and balancing itself!), although obviously the concept is there.
Of course, the filibuster is not in the Constitution, and neither is any sense of a jury of peers.
Bonus points to Doug for properly noting that e. is also a grant of a right that may be waived, and I did not phrase it as such. I thought about that when I wrote it, but since it wasn't true anyway, I left it.
Negative points to "Willard's booster" for trolling, and doing it so poorly.
Note my problem was with the word "limit" and not with "implied" as you are correct with the latter.
The Constitution itself doesn't have the power to 'limit' as you might have figured out from how our legislative history is building up. The power to limit the Federal Govt. can only come from the people electorally or by force. The constitution may set limits as in a 'noun' use, but not in the form of a 'verb'. Since the others (except for A) were based on specifics, just thought I'd share my opinion on that.
Posted by: Doug on January 2, 2008 09:22 PMTo say "the Constitution limits the federal government" is to say "the Constitution places limits on the federal government" and "the government violating those limits is breaking the law." I stand by my language. :-)
Posted by: pudge on January 2, 2008 09:46 PMYour definition of C is also idiosyncratic. Clearly the Fedgov has both limits and minimum responsibilities. Your quiz is more of a political statement than a genuine question. You feel that fedgov has exceeded its constitutional limitations. While you might be able to make a theoretical argument about the correctness of your position, others can argue other theories with equal reasonableness. In real life c does not appear to be correct.
Sorry, but it is bad form for a quiz to promote an opinion with loaded answers. Naughty. ;-)
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on January 2, 2008 09:55 PMWrong answers:
a - Not in the constitution (see 1st Amendment, ponder "institution".)
c - 10th Amendment
d - Senate rules (constitution says senate has final say on senate rules)
e - 6th amendment
Amendments are what again? You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term.
Posted by: deadwood on January 2, 2008 10:17 PMThe Constitution did not even pretend to create co-equal branches, it only attempted to create separate branches that weren't so separate.
Posted by: Doug on January 2, 2008 10:17 PMThe cons does not rank the powers of the three branches.
Not explicitly, correct, which is why it is INcorrect to claim that the Constiution creates three coequal branches of the federal government. Further, it is quite clear that the Founders did not intend the branches to be coequal.
Each branch has limited authority, each branch has some power over the others. I stick with my answer of B.
Shrug, OK. I admire someone who sticks to his guns. But your answer is wrong. :-) Coequality is not a feature of our Constitution.
Your definition of C is also idiosyncratic. Clearly the Fedgov has both limits and minimum responsibilities.
So what's the problem, then?
Your quiz is more of a political statement than a genuine question.
Yes: a political statement that many people put things into the Constitution that are not there, and ignore what actually is there. So what?
You feel that fedgov has exceeded its constitutional limitations.
Well, that is a obviously true statement of fact. There's simply no denying it.
While you might be able to make a theoretical argument about the correctness of your position, others can argue other theories with equal reasonableness.
No, in fact, they cannot. There is no reasonable debate on the subject, literally. You will find that the debate turns, on the other side, to whether we should hold the government to those limits, not whether those limits are in the Constitution.
In real life c does not appear to be correct.
Nope. We are talking about what the Constitution actually says, not whether it is followed.
Posted by: pudge on January 2, 2008 11:02 PMBecause it is so powerful, Madison wrote, we therefore have to seek to limit it in various ways. One way is by separating it by mode of operation and mode of election into two distinct bodies. The 17th Amendment wiped that out, of course, which gave the Congress too much power, and in response, the court and the President have exercised (using Madison's words) their own powers of "self-defence" against the Congress, to fight back.
But you're right, in some ways, the executive has more "effective" power today, because it fought back and power shifted back to the President, and it went too far. But the Congress still holds the power, it chooses not to wield it, and gives it away, such as in the President writing the budget, the War Powers Act, deferring to the President more in his appointments, and so on. Lately, it's been swinging back toward the legislature.
And don't even get me started on the Courts, who have grown WAY too big for their britches. Sigh.
Anyway, the point could be argued that the constitutional goal of our government should be coequality in EFFECTIVE power, but not in ACTUAL power, because at the end of the day, Congress can do whatever it wishes and no one can stop them (except, of course, the people!).
Posted by: pudge on January 2, 2008 11:11 PMI took the question of what is in the Constitution literally.... the ORIGINAL document, not the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments...
but its a great exercise, and I still think that I'm correct.
Alex Trebek = pudge ???
cheers, Mike
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on January 3, 2008 09:06 AMBut even if I don't live in KC...can I vote more than once?
Posted by: Susu on January 3, 2008 10:22 AMIn practice, the full power of the legislative branch is difficult to muster, as that power is divided between two chambers and (typically) two parties.
Whereas, the power of the executive branch rests in one individual. This focus of power gives the appearance that the executive is more powerful than the legislative.
But since the context of this discussion is what the Constitution says, and not appearances, the legislative should be deemed the "more equal" of the three branches.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 3, 2008 12:34 PMAll those members of congress who have voted for things not authorized in the Constitution have violated their oaths of office: to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. GW Bush's No Child Left Behind, the use of force authorization against terrorism, the Military Commissions Act that erodes habeas corpus and the USA PATRIOT Act, the acts that created social security and welfare are examples of oath-violating bills. We should never vote for anyone who voted for these bills if we value the rule of law, or the integrity of the oath-taker.
But there is a lot to be said for A as well.
The first amendment does say "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Constitution also says that no religious test shall be required for any office in the US. "Our Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but is not mentioned in the Constitution. Though this is not quite a complete separation of church and state, it does authorize and give us a largely secular government.
By the way, it is separation of church and state that gives us freedom of religion. That separation is probably the reason that religions are so vibrant in the US, and so anemic in Europe, where the government has nearly strangled religion. Those of you who are religious should be grateful that we have the level of separation that we enjoy.
The separation of church and state is a sort of truce of tolerance between the religious sects. It is sort of as though the founders had said: "look, none of us would want another sect to gain control of government and get special advantages or discriminate against our views. So let us call a truce. We will limit government's ability to meddle in religious affairs, or to grant special advantages to particular sects, in the interest of preserving religious liberty. The tolerance of religious differences will contribute to freedom of religion."
The founders had great religious diversity. There were Christians (Adams, Washington), deists (Franklin and Jefferson), agnostics and atheists (Paine). I think they were wise in declaring religion off-limits as a battle-ground within government. We just all need to get along, don't we?
Religions should compete in the marketplace of ideas, not within the halls of government. May the best religion win. In this way, the people will win.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 12:40 PMThat's true but I believe that amendments to a document, once they are ratified, become officially a part of that document.
Well, James Madison argued that the Tenth Amendment was redundant.
To be Clintonian, the "Constitution" is the main articles. The Bill of Rights and additional admendments are add-ons to the Constitution after it was established, with the Bill of Rights coming immediately.
No, I can't agree. Saying "The Constitution" necessarily includes the amendments. When you amend something, that amendment becomes part of what you are amending. I don't say that an addition to my house is not a part of my house.
Yes, that is why A is not the correct answer. :-)
Posted by: pudge on January 3, 2008 02:08 PM"What is the principle of the last two Amendments of the US Constition that have been systematically destroyed over the last 70 years starting with the bloody socialist FDR, Alex?"
"Right you are, Pudge, continue, while I go make-out with Vanna White in the other game-show study"
......
"OK, I'm back."
"Alex, I'll take 'Candidates for the 2008 Presidential nomination who believe in the US Constitution for 400 dollars."
"Ding, Ding, Ding!, it's the daily double! For 800 dollars, the question is 'He is a great man who understands the US Constitution but is badly maligned on certain supposedly conservative web-sites by morons.'"
"Ron Paul"
"No, Dammit, you've got to put your answer in the form of a question. You all have been watching this show for 25 freaking years, and somebody's got to jack that up every show!"
"The answer is 'Who is Ron Paul' Criminy!"
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on January 3, 2008 03:57 PMUm, the answer is C.
Duh.
Posted by: Cydney on January 3, 2008 04:21 PMNor is there anything about the three branches being coequal. They aren't coequal. The judiciary was designed as the branch with -- by far -- the least power, but in scope, ability to enforce, and ability to defend itself from the other two branches. Congress has the most power.
Posted by: pudge on January 4, 2008 10:10 PMa. a long list of things congress shall not make a law about (education for example)
b. the right to life (No State shall allow, or fail to punish as first degree murder, any....)
c. Clarify 2d amendment by inserting the word "individual" or deleting the first clause
d. balanced budget
e. line item veto
f. other
???????
PS- suggesting an amendment is not admitting the constitution is properly read as needing it, if you know what I mean.