Why Should I Pay for My Tuition and for Your Tuition?

We have a President who does not obey rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than a year ago in June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Joe Biden’s previous initiative to cancel student loans. Now Biden is trying it again.

On Monday, Biden announced that he had a plan to cancel at least $5,000 for over 10 million Americans with student loans. Seven Republican attorneys general said “not so fast” by filing a lawsuit today against the new student loan forgiveness plan. Kate Anderson wrote about the situation in an article published in The Daily Signal. 

… Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri filed a lawsuit alongside Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma, arguing that the president’s plan was unconstitutional and “illegal.”

“With the stroke of his pen, Joe Biden is attempting to saddle working Missourians with a half trillion dollars in college debt. The United States Constitution makes clear that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally ‘cancel’ student loan debt for millions of Americans without express permission from Congress,” Bailey said in a press release.

“The President does not get to thwart the Constitution when it suits is political agenda. I’m filing suit to halt his brazen attempt to curry favor with some citizens by forcing others to shoulder their debts. The Constitution will continue to mean something as long as I’m Attorney General.”

The president’s new plan focuses on low-and-middle income Americans and those who attended a “low-financial-value” institution, who will now be able to enroll in an “income-driven repayment plan.” The plan has been criticized for ignoring the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that struck down the president’s unilateral forgiveness of student debt through the Department of Education’s emergency authority.

The lawsuit, citing the Supreme Court ruling, argues that Biden and his administration are attempting “to sidestep the Constitution” and “impose drastic, costly policy changes on the American people without their consent.”

“Yet again, the President is unilaterally trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy that he could not get through Congress,” the lawsuit reads.

The president announced in March that he was canceling almost $6 billion in student loan debt for teachers, nurses and firefighters, among others through Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The administration has canceled student debt for roughly four million Americans to the tune of $146 billion through executive actions.

Bidon’s plan to cancel student loans for select groups of students is unfair to the millions of other students who paid their own college expenses. It is unfair to the millions of people who did not go to college but will be forced to pay the student loans for those who did go to college. It is unfair for the students who have their loans cancelled because they will never learn the lesson: If you take out a loan, YOU are responsible to repay the money.

Safeguard Our Constitution

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had proven incapable of governing the new American nation, so a group of men met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to revise the document. The men soon determined that it would be better to write a completely new document than to try to amend the original one.

            There was a quorum of men in attendance for the first time on May 25, 1787, and they began drafting a new Constitution. The men worked in secret throughout the hot summer months of 1787. The new document was adopted and signed on September 17, 1787. The ratification process began on that same day and was completed on May 29, 1790. The U.S. Constitution has served the nation well for over 200 years and has been amended only 27 times in those years with the last amendment being made 26 years ago.

            There are increasing numbers of calls for the Constitution to be amended, most notably for the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Our rights to free speech, press, assembly, religion, and to petition the government are all protected by the First Amendment. The Second Amendment concerns our right to protect ourselves from all enemies, including the government.         

             The calls to change these amendments are serious and dangerous, and they are led by individuals and organizations who do not like our constitutional way of life. Americans must stay alert and not back down in our fight to protect our freedoms and rights. There are many calls now to hinder the Second Amendment because of school massacres. However, the end result is the desire to confiscate all firearms.

            Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying the following statement or a similar version of it: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

            We must safeguard our freedoms at all costs. Otherwise, they will be taken from us a little at a time until we have none left. We must not be fooled by thinking that we can gain more security by giving up freedom. Our Constitution has protected our nation for more than 200 years. It is certainly capable of protecting us now.

No Impairing of Contracts

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…."  This clause guarantees to Americans that no act of the legislature will alter or make illegal any existing contract. 

                    "The violation of existing contracts by both the states and the federal government is more commonplace than might be supposed.  Here are some examples which violate the ex post facto clause as well as the impairing-of-contracts clause:  1) Suspending payments on mortgages or debts during a depression.  2) Compelling creditors to take paper money in payment for debts in spite of contracts specifically providing that payment must be in gold or silver.  3) Imposing an embargo on foreclosures against homes or farms during a depression.

                    "Usually these have been justified on the argument that the ex post facto provision was intended only for criminal cases and that the impairing of contracts is done as a matter of `social justice' in an emergency…."  (See W. Cleon Skousen in The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, pp 499-500.)

                    We have been witnesses over the past few years of contracts being changed by Executive Orders (taking over of General Motors to take citizens' investments there and give it to the unions, forcing the big banks to make mortgage loans to people who did not have the ability to repay them, etc.).  We have also witnessed Congress trying to force national health care on us and impair our contracts with insurance companies.  Everything that this Administration does is done in the name of "social justice."

                     "The Obligation of Contract Clause thus had its origins in previous national policy by extending to the states a prohibition that was already in effect in the Northwest Territory.  In the brief debate that followed, George Mason feared the prohibition would prevent the states from establishing time limits on when actions could be brought on state-issued bonds.  James Wilson responded that the clause would prevent `retrospective interferences only,' that is, impairment of contracts already made.  These comments suggest that the Framers may well have intended to limit states in their impairment of private contracts already made.  But the issue is not free from doubt.  The words `previously formed' were not carried over to the Obligation of Contract Clause, so that the text reads as though it has some prospective application of uncertain extent.  It is therefore conceivable to apply the Obligation of Contract Clause prospectively to allow the passage of statutes of limitations, by thinking of it as a rule that protects against both retroactive and selective impairments of future contracts that would have the effect of shifting the balance of advantage from one contracting party to another."  (See Richard A. Epstein in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp 171-172.)

No Ex Post Facto Law

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … pass … ex post facto Law…."  American citizens are assured by this clause that they will not be charged for any crime that was not on the books before it was committed.  More information on thissubject can be found here.   

                    "The issue of ex post facto laws was more nuanced [than Bill of Attainder].  Many of the Founders regarded retroactive laws, both civil and criminal, as contrary to the principle of legality itself.  Roman Law, as well as Henry de Bracton, Sir Edward Coke, and Sir William Blackstone in English law, and the influential Baron de Montesquieu condemned the practice.  Thomas Jefferson noted in an 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson, `The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the state constitutions have failed to proscribe them.'  At Philadelphia, some Framers, such as James Wilson, thought ex post facto laws so extra-legal that they were void ab initio; no textual prohibition was necessary.  But a majority wanted the prohibition stated in express terms.  (See David F. Forte in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 170.)

No Bill of Attainder

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder…."  This clause in the Constitution tells American citizens that they do not need to be concerned about being convicted of a crime by the legislature instead of having a fair trial with a jury.  More information on this subject can be found here.  

                    "The Framers regarded bills of attainder and ex post facto laws as so offensive to liberty that they prohibited their use by both Congress (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) and the states.  The Framers had observed the use of bills of attainder by Parliament, particularly in cases of treason, and they were determined to deny the national legislature any such power.  As Justice Samuel Chase noted in Calder v. Bull (1798), the Framers applied the prohibition to the states `[t]o prevent such and similar acts of violence and injustice.'"  (See David F. Forte in The Heritage Guide to the constitution, 170.)

                    

Knowledge Brings Freedom

                    The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that more Americans need to know what the US Constitution actually says as well as what it means in order to defend freedom.  Our Constitution has been the supreme law of our nation for over 200 years, and yet some of our current and past leaders do not want to abide by it.  Americans must know what is in the Constitution and guard the freedoms provided by the Constitution from our elected and appointed leaders.

You may remember when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked in 2009 if Obamacare was constitutional and she answered, "Are you serious?"  Right now liberals are trying to silence their political opponents by pushing through Congress a proposed amendment to the Constitution, known as the "People's Rights Amendment," which would destroy freedom of speech for groups of citizens.  Americans have enjoyed freedom of speech for more than 200 years, but we may lose this basic freedom if we are not alert.  

                    In an essay entitled "Do You Know What theConstitution Really Means?" on their Morning Bell blog, The Heritage Foundation explained what this amendment would do.  "The proposal, which is known as the `People's Rights Amendment,' would amend the Constitution and hold that constitutional rights are only for `natural persons,' meaning that corporations and legal entities would no longer enjoy the freedoms the Constitution guarantees.  That would apply not just to companies like General Electric, but also to newspapers, churches, nonprofits, businesses, labor unions and book publishers alike.  Individuals acting collectively - whatever their purpose - would wave the freedom of speech goodbye."

                    Many more Americans are studying the Constitution today than in the recent past, and The Heritage Foundation wants to aid us in our quest to "learn more about the history of our founding document."  "Heritage's Online Guide to the Constitution is a comprehensive and authoritative analysis of every single clause in the Constitution - and its available for free at ConstitutionOnline.com."  l

                    The new online guide was also touted on another blog from The Heritage Foundation - New Common Sense:  Applying First Principles to the Issues of Today.  This blog published a different essay about this subject entitled "Top 5 Things You Didn't Know about theConstitution."  The blog proceeds to list and explain those five things.  It is an interesting essay, and it also links to ConstitutionOnline.com.

                    Being able to study the Constitution online with explanations by constitutional experts should help all of us learn better what our Founders put in this glorious document.  I hope you will use this source to increase your knowledge and then share it with others.

Only Gold and Silver

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…."  This provision in the Constitution tells States that Congress has the authority over the national financial system based on gold and silver and that no State can legally authorize anything else.

                    "When the Congress ruled out paper currency as a medium of exchange, it was trying to guarantee that, from this point on, the American people would have honest money based on precious metal.  The states were also restricted so that they would stay on a solid system of honest money based on gold and silver.

                    "Unfortunately, however, precious metal is a very awkward and cumbersome means of transacting business.  The people virtually demand paper money, especially for larger transactions…." (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p 497).

                    "… During the Revolution, the states began issuing paper currencies again, having a somewhat better record in financing the war than Congress had.  After 1783, however, specie dried up in a popular rush to purchase imported goods, and the states' currency issues exacerbated the serious depression of 1784.  In early 1787, Massachusetts, which had resisted currency issues, was faced with Shays's Rebellion, whose partisans demanded new currency.  In Philadelphia, the Framers were determined to put an end to the practice that they believed had contributed to so much economic and political dislocation.  Rhode Island, a major issuer of paper money, refused to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention precisely because it feared monetary reform" (David F. Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p 169).

No State Coins or Bills

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … coin money [or] emit Bills of Credit…."  This provision in the Constitution reminds the States that Congress has the authority to mint coins or print paper money.  The term "Bills of Credit" refers to any type of money not backed by silver or gold.

                    One of the worst problems of the Revolutionary War "was the lack of national control over money and credits.  In section 8 this power had been specifically reserved to the national government so that there would be a central control of whatever medium was used as legal tender in commercial transactions" (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p 493).

                    The Constitution prohibited states from making any type of money and shifted "the power to make economic policy from the states to the federal government.  In the late eighteenth century, money and trade were the prime mechanisms for regulating the economy, and the Constitution gave both exclusively to the new central government" (David F. Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p 168). 

No State Letters of Marque and Reprisal

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall … grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal…."  There was an obvious reason why this provision and other provisions in Clause 1 were included in the U.S. Constitution; it included in order that the States would understand that this authority rested with the federal government.

                    "The word marque is a seal associated with letters of authorization from a sovereign nation to one of its private citizens to seize or destroy (commit reprisal against) the ships or other resources of an enemy.

                    "Such a letter would be dangerous if issued by a single state, since it could involve all of the other states in a conflict with some foreign nation…" (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, pp. 492-493).

                    "Many of the federal government's enumerated powers relate to foreign affairs and have corresponding restrictions on states in Article I, Section 10.  Article VI of the Articles of Confederation had permitted the states … to grant letters of marque and reprisal after Congress had declared war…" (Brannon P. Denning, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 168).

No State Treaties, Alliances, and/or Confederations

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:  "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…."  Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifically granted to Congress the power and authority to make treaties, alliances, and/or confederations; therefore, this provision merely reminds the States that the federal government has the right and the responsibility to handle these specific duties. 

                    "All of the powers denied to the states in this section are those which are specifically granted to the national government in section 8.  The states had exercised these powers under the Articles of Confederation and had nearly wrecked the government.  That is why the Founders took this extra precaution to spell out these powers as belonging to the national government after the adoption of the federal charter" (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 492).

                    The Articles of Confederation (Article VI) allowed the states to make treaties with foreign governments as long as Congress approved.  "In addition to granting the government powers to regulate trade and raise revenue that it either lacked or could not enforce under the Articles of Confederation, the Framers intended the Constitution to centralize much, if not all, power over foreign affairs.  Many of the federal government's enumerated powers relate to foreign affairs and have corresponding restrictions on states in Article I, Section 10….

                    "Treaties, as well as alliances and confederations, are formal, binding agreements between nations that are the subjects of international law…." (Brannon P. Denning, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 167-168).

                    The Founders wrote the Constitution in such a way as to allow for a strong, central government to handle national affairs while at the same time allowing States to handle local affairs.  They obviously could see that big problems could come from having both States and the central government entering into treaties, etc. with foreign governments.

Gifts from Foreign Governments

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:  "… And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [United States], 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."  This provision in the Constitution provides us with assurance that our elected officials will do the job we have given them without being "bought" by gifts from foreign nations.

                    "The Founders were anxious that the wealth of European nations would not be used to compromise the loyalties of American officials.  It is said that a gift from the king of France to the American ambassador during the Revolutionary War aroused sufficient concern to have this provision inserted in the Constitution….

                    "The Founders left no doubt as to their intention when they incorporated this provision into the Constitution."  (See W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 487.)

                    Robert Delahunty further explained the importance of the Emoluments Clause:  "Like several other provisions of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause also embodies the memory of the epochal constitutional struggles in seventeenth-century Britain between the forces of Parliament and the Stuart dynasty.  St. George Tucker's explanation of the clause noted that `in the reign of Charles the [S]econd of England, that prince, and almost all his officers of state were either actual pensioners of the court of France, or supposed to be under its influence, directly, or indirectly, from that cause.  The reign of that monarch has been, accordingly, proverbially disgraceful to his memory.'  As these remarks imply, the clause was directed not merely at American diplomats serving abroad, but more generally at officials throughout the federal government.

                    "The Emoluments Clause has apparently never been litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General.  Congress has also exercised its power of "Consent" under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances" (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 167).

                    I believe that it is obvious why our elected leaders and other federal workers should not receive emoluments from foreign governments, but I want to make sure you see the reason.  We want our elected representatives and those they appoint to positions to be loyal to the United States and protect the rights of Americans!  We must continue to insist that our officials be true to our Constitution and nation.

No Titles of Nobility

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…."  This clause in the Constitution guaranteed that the government would not bestow aristocratic titles or create a titled class in the United States.

                    The Founders were determined that their new society would not be divided into classes.  "This provision is almost identical with the one which appears in the Articles of Confederation (Article VI).  It was designed to prevent the division of the people into upper and lower classes, and to prevent officers or persons of prominence in the United States form coming under the influence of foreign powers through titles or gifts.  When Lord Baltimore received his charter for Maryland in 1632 it authorized him to grant titles of nobility.  One or two other colonial charters granted this same authority.  The Founders were anxious to wipe out the possibility of a peerage class being developed during the coming generation.

                    "The ranks of nobility in England were those of a duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron.  There were to be no such ranks among the people of the United States."  (See W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 486.)

                    This part of what is called the Emoluments Clause shows the greatness of the men who founded our nation.  Among the group of men who wrote our Constitution, there was enough education, experience, knowledge, and wisdom that they tried to look down the corridors of time and solve as many future problems as possible.  They realized the damage that could come to this new nation if the people became divided by titles.

                    "Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution's prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause.  The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.

                    "The prohibition on federal titles of nobility - reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility … was designed to underpin the republican character of the American government.  In the ample sense James Madison gave the term in The Federalist No. 39, a republic was `a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during good behavior.'"  (See Robert Delahunty, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 166.)

                    This clause protects the American people and their republican government.  Along with other clauses, it helps to insure that the government will be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

                    

Receipts

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:  "... a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."  This clause tells us that We The People have the right to know where our tax dollars are going. 

The Founders were concerned about accurately accounting for the people's money and preventing fraud, theft, or waste.  At the time this clause was written, the accounting procedures were much more difficult that it is now with calculators and computers to help with the work.  While the task has been made easier with modern conveniences, the morals of many of those involved today have taken a dive.  Many of the taxpayers' dollars are being spent extravagantly, embezzled, or fraudulently redistributed.

                    The fact that the Founders put "chains" on the federal government partially saves the dollars of the American people.  "There are limits to the length to which Congress may go in its exercise of the appropriations power.  Congress's power, in this respect, like all of its other powers, is subject to the Bill of Rights and other constraints in the Constitution.  Congress may not, for example, in the guise of appropriating, subject named individuals to bills of attainders explicitly prohibited by the Constitution…."  (See Gary Kepplinger, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 165.)

Lawful Appropriations

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:  "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."  This clause in the Constitution promises that no taxpayer money will be spent unless their elected representatives approve it.

                    "This is the meaning of the phrase, `appropriation made by law.'  It is intended to mean that neither the executive nor the legislature alone can raise or spend money at will, but that each appropriation bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President (or passed over his veto by a two-thirds vote).  …

                    "In other words, even though a legitimate debt is due by the United States, no payment can be made until an appropriation for that purpose has been legally processed as described above."  (See W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, pp. 484-485.)

                    Gary Kepplinger explained this clause further:  "The Appropriations Clause is the cornerstone of Congress's `power of the purse.'  It assigns to Congress the role of final arbiter of the use of public funds.  The source of Congress's power to spend derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.  The Appropriations Clause provides Congress with a mechanism to control or to limit spending by the federal government.  The Framers chose the particular language of limitation, not authorization, for the first part of the clause and placed it in Section 9 of Article I, along with other restrictions on governmental actions to limit, most notably, executive action."  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 163.)

Balanced Center

                    The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday is why our government must maintain a balanced center.  The Founders understood well that the government of their new nation needed to be firmly in the center of the political spectrum, neither moving to the left and tyranny nor to the right and anarchy.

                    James Madison described the duties of the central and state governments:  "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite….  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

                    W. Cleon Skousen explained why the Founders wanted to keep the "American eagle" sitting firmly in the center of the political spectrum.  He said that the "fixing of the American eagle in the center of the spectrum was designed to maintain this political equilibrium between the people in the state and the federal government.  The idea was to keep the power base close to the people.  The emphasis was on strong local self-government.  The states would be responsible for internal affairs and the federal government would confine itself to those areas which could not be fairly or effectively handled by the individual states." 

                    Skousen included a wonderful picture with the "American eagle" in the center of the Founders' "yardstick" marked with tyranny on one end and anarchy on the other.  He explained that other men advocated for a separation of the functions of government into three departments - legislative, executive, and judicial, but the Founders were the first to build a government that might be considered to be a three-headed eagle, with each head representing a department.  Here he included another great picture of an eagle with three heads - one head facing left, one head facing forward, and one head facing right.

                    Skousen explained that the central head represents the legislative branch and has two eyes representing the fact that the House of Representatives and the Senate must work together and see eye-to-eye.  A second head represents the executive branch and its authority centered in a single, strong President.  The third head represents the judicial branch with the responsibility to guard the Constitution and interpret its principles.

                    "The genius of this three-headed eagle was not only the separation of powers but the fact that all three heads operated through a single neck.  By this means the Founders carefully integrated these three departments so that each one was coordinated with the others and could not perform independently of them.  It was an ingeniously structured pattern of political power which might be described as `coordination without consolidation.'"

                    Skousen continued with his description of the Founders' new government by using the symbol of an eagle.  He indicated that the eagle's two wings are to be used together in order to keep the eagle flying straight.  One wing "might be referred to as the problem-solving wing or the wing of compassion.  Those who function through this dimension of the system are sensitive to the unfulfilled needs of the people.  They dream of elaborate plans to solve these problems."

                    The second wing "has the responsibility of conserving the nation's resources and the people's freedom.  Its function is to analyze the programs of wing #1 with two questions.  First, can we afford it?  Secondly, what will it do to the rights and individual freedom of the people."

                    I think that you can agree with me that the American eagle is no longer flying straight.  The head representing the executive branch has grown too heavy with usurped responsibilities, such as the President issuing Executive Orders, making "recess" appointments when Congress is not in recess, and even refusing to answer a subpoena to appear in a court hearing in Georgia over his eligibility to appear on the state's ballot.  Our current President has actually asked the Legislature to give him more authority!  The Legislature is not functioning properly as shown in their failure to pass a budget for over 1000 days; the two Houses are definitely not working together or seeing "eye-to-eye" as they argue over everything and complete few issues of the peoples' business, becoming the least effective legislature in history.  The Judiciary continues to legislate from the bench instead of just guarding and protecting the Constitution.  The compassionate wing has pulled some of the feathers out of the conservation wing and caused our nation to go deeply into debt as well as destroy some freedoms of the people.  Our American eagle is definitely not flying straight!

The Founders clearly outlined the responsibilities and powers of each part of the government when they framed the Constitution; if the government was working properly the American eagle would be flying straight and strong.  It is way past time to move the balance of power in the government back to the center.  We need to elect more representatives who are constitutionalists and will obey the law of the land.  The most important thing we can do is retire the current occupant of the Oval Office and replace him with a constitution-loving American!

Many of the ideas and quotes for this article are from Skousen's The Five Thousand Year Leap - 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World, pp. 22-24.  Do you own a copy of this book yet?  I recommend that you obtain one as soon as possible and that you study it until you thoroughly understand it.

No Preference to Ports

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I.9.6:  "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another…."  This provision in the U.S. Constitution gives assurance to every port in the United States that regulations will be administered fairly and equitably among the ports of the nation and not use them to gain political advantage.

                    According to W. Cleon Skousen, it was Maryland that insisted that this provision be included in the Constitution.  Maryland "feared that congressional legislation might give preference to the Virginia ports of the Chesapeake Bay rather than their own.

                    "It will be recalled that the Founders were attempting to remove the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation which allowed the various states to discriminate against one another by the imposition of taxes on exports.  In the present provision the states were attempting to prevent the federal government from interfering with the normal flow of commerce by preferring one port over another" (The Making of American - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 483).

                    "Like the Uniformity Clause, with which it was initially joined at the Constitutional Convention, and the Export Taxation Clause, the Port Preference Clause was meant to interfere with the natural tendency of legislatures to become instruments through which powerful commercial interests injure their politically weaker rivals….

                    "… More recently, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a concurrence that a natural reading of the constitutional language `prohibits Congress from using its commerce power to channel commerce through certain favored ports.'  United States v. Lopez (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring).  As the case law stands, however, Congress is on its honor to comply with the spirit of the clause by refraining from politically motivated favoritism that distorts the natural economic competition among American ports."

(See Nelson Lund, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 162-163.)

No Export Taxes

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I.9.5:  "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."  This clause gave states the right to export goods to foreign nations without the central government taxing them.

                    "This provision was adopted at the insistence of the cotton states because of their profitable markets in Europe.  They did not want an export tax which would force them to sell to the New England textile mills at a cheaper price.

                    "It should be noted that Congress may tax commodities even though they are exported by the states, providing the tax is uniformly applied on these goods whether they are exported or not….

                    "This clause received extensive discussion…."  (See W. Cleon Skousen in The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 482.)

                    "The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union.  Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution.  As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes.  In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies.  They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery.  They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry….

                    "Although the original purpose of the Export Taxation Clause was to prevent sectional favoritism by Congress, the Court has chosen to enforce the flat ban that the Framers placed into the Constitution's text, rather than seeking to measure an export tax's discriminatory effect.  Under the Commerce Clause, Congress retains the power to regulate exports, even to the extent of creating embargoes.  It may not, however, utilize export taxes as a means of regulation."  (See David F. Forte in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 161-162.)

No Capitation Tax

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:  "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, [unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]"  This principle of the United States Constitution guaranteed to American citizens that they would never be subject to a fixed tax of so much per person except in proportion to the population of their state.

                    "The word capitation comes from a Latin word meaning `head.'  Therefore, any reference to capitation taxes or poll taxes refers to a tax which is levied at `so much per head,' regardless of circumstance.  The Founders were well aware that this is not a fair tax, but it is the most easily collected in an emergency.  But how much should the head tax be?  Should this be determined by the wealth of the state, or its population?  … [T]he Founders felt there was no way of accurately determining the wealth of a state, whereas there could be no question as to the number of people.  For this reason they concluded at the Convention to make it a matter of constitutional mandate that if the government was ever forced to levy a head tax on the states, it would be according to the population."  (See W. Cleon Skousen in The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p 477.)

                    Due to the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not give the national government much power to raise revenue, the Founders wanted to give the federal government more power to do so even though they were very concerned about taxes.  "Indirect taxes (generally understood as falling on articles of consumption) did not lend themselves to congressional abuse …, but the Framers believed that `directed taxes' needed to be cabined.  The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state's share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose….

                    "Direct taxes, which were expected to be used only in emergencies, did not have the built-in protections characteristic of indirect taxes.  Direct taxes were imposed directly on individuals, who, it was assumed, could not shift their liability to others.  If a tax was not indirect, the Framers though it should be apportioned.  Capitation and land taxes were direct under this understanding, but so might other taxes be whether known in 1787 or not.  If nothing else, a broader understanding of `direct taxes' should require that the constitutional character of any proposed tax be studied before it is enacted in an unapportioned form."  (See Erik M. Jensen in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp 159-160.)

                    

No Ex Post Facto Law

                    The topic of discussion on this Constitution Monday comes from Article I.9.3:  "No … ex post facto law shall be passed [by Congress].  This provision in the Constitution gave every American the guarantee that there would be no law passed by Congress after an act had occurred.

                    "The term ex post facto simply means `after the deed or fact.'  There are five situations which this provision prohibits: 

1) Charging someone with an offense or crime which was not illegal at the time it occurred….

2) Charging someone with a crime under a law which has made the offense more serious than when it was committed….

3) Subjecting someone to a greater punishment than was prescribed by the law at the time the offense was perpetrated….

4) Allowing evidence to be introduced under new rules which were not in effect at the time the offense occurred….

5) Passing a law which deprives the accused of some protection to which he was entitled at the time the act occurred….

                    "Many injustices have been prevented under this provision…."  (See W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p 476.)

                    "As generally understood, a law that is ex post facto - literally, after the fact - is one that criminally punishes conduct that was lawful when it was done.  It is an aspect of the fundamental maxim, nulla poena sine lege:  there can be no punishment without law - in this case, without pre-existing law.  Despite the fact that the prohibition against such laws had worked its way into English law (as celebrated by Sir William Blackstone), Parliament had, nonetheless, claimed the right to enact ex post facto laws in the form of bills of attainder against unpopular groups and persons.  In addition, prior to the Constitutional Convention, some states themselves had passed ex post facto laws.  (The prohibition of ex post facto state laws is found in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).

                    "Nevertheless, opposition to ex post facto laws was a bedrock principle among the Framers….

                    "In Philadelphia, the Framers debated the issue vigorously….  The delegates then approved the clause….

                    "While the Supreme Court has hewn to the position that the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits criminal penalties only, it has also applied the clause in civil cases where criminal penalties are disguised as civil disabilities.  As the Court has said, `it is the effect, not the form, of the law that determines whether it is ex post facto.'  Weaver v. Graham (1980)."  (See Daniel Troy, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp 156-157.)

No Bill of Attainder

                    The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article I.9.3:  "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed [by Congress]."  This provision means that no United States citizen could be declared a criminal by an act of Congress.

Both England and colonial America had deprived people of their rights without first giving them a fair trial; by the time the Constitution was written, the Founders realized it was wrong. 

                    "The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.  The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion….

                    "In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death.  Bills of attainder also required the `corruption of blood'; that is, they denied to the condemned's heirs the right to inherit his estate.  Bills of pains and penalties, in contrast, singled out designated persons or groups for punishment less than death, such as banishment or disenfranchisement.  Many states had enacted both kinds of statutes after the Revolution.

                    "The Framers forbade bills of attainder as part of their strategy of undoing the English law of treason, and to contend with what they regarded as the most serious historical instance of legislative tyranny by state or national legislatures…."  (See Daniel Troy, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p 154-155.)

                    Bills of attainder or ex post facto laws were prohibitively unfair, discriminatory, and arbitrary.  They had no place in the new government being organized in America.

  "The word attainder comes from a French term meaning `to point' or `to touch' with the finger of accusation.  A bill of attainder was an act of Parliament which arbitrarily deprived an individual or group of individuals of their civil rights without any trial or conviction.  A person who had been `attainted' had therefore been `tainted or stained, disgraced or dishonored.'  Thus, a bill of attainder in England was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried, convicted, and disposed of without a jury, without a hearing in court, and generally without an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him or have the protection of the ordinary rules of evidence used in the courts.  His blood was considered to be `attainted' or legally corrupted so that he could not inherit property from others, nor could his children inherit any of his property.  It therefore allowed all of his property to go to the Crown, and this became a convenient but vicious instrument for the enrichment of the Crown.

                    "During periods when the king dominated the Parliament, bills of attainder were used to punish any citizen who had incurred the king's displeasure, and many fell victims of these proceedings who could not have been charged with any offense under existing law….

                    "During the American Revolutionary War, bills of attainder were used extensively to confiscate the property of royalists…. By 1787, however, the Founders were convinced that even under the pressure of wartime conditions or a national emergency, this was an improper mode of punishment which violated the basic civil rights of a citizen.  It was therefore proscribed or outlawed both on the federal level and among the states."  (See W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America - The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p 475.)