Vice President Takes Command

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

                The provision in the Constitution gives authority to the Vice President to assume the duties of President if the majority of the Cabinets agree that the President is incapable of performing the duties of his office.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained a major problem with this provision.  “It is believed by some constitution authorities that this provision opens the door to serious abuse….

                “This becomes more apparent after careful consideration of the rest of this amendment.

                “At this point it is sufficient to simply point out that if a Vice President has ambitions to seize the Presidency, and can get a majority of the Cabinet to agree with him, he is given the power in this provision to summarily take over the duties of the President, with or without the consent of the President.  The fact that the power to make the change is left in the hands of the individual who will benefit the most politically by initiating the change is, in and of itself, a dangerous procedure.” (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 760.)

                John Feerick of The Heritage Foundation is a little bit more calm about this provision.  “… The Twenty-fifth Amendment captures the history of succession in its provisions providing for the Vice President to become President in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President and to serve as Acting President for the during of any inability.  It allows a President to declare his own inability and resume his powers and duties when it has ended.  This provision has been used when Presidents underwent surgery – in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan and in 2002 by President George W. Bush.  For situations where the President is unable to declare his own inability, the amendment authorizes the Vice President, acting with a majority of the Cabinet, to do so and then act as President.  If the President disagrees, Congress resolves the issue.  The amendment also gives Congress the power to replace the Cabinet and substitute another body to function with the Vice President.  It was not an accident that the amendment did not define `inability.’  The term was left vague in order to provide maximum flexibility to the constitutional decision makers, at a time of crisis, to do what they thought was in the best interests of the country.  It was intended to cover cases of both physical and mental inability, such as when a President undergoes surgery, is kidnapped, or becomes infirm.”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 431.)

                I thought for a second that this provision could save us from the current President’s destruction of our nation – but then we would have Joe Biden as the Acting President!  

Death of President-Elect

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.  If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified….”  This provision in the Constitution insures there will be a President of the United States in spite of whatever may happen.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained, “The office of President of the United States is the most powerful political assignment in the world.  The demands of living in an atomic age make it mandatory that this office remain functional at all times.  The authors of this amendment recognized that there was a weakness in the transitional procedure as power is transferred from the incumbent President to the President-elect.  A variety of mishaps might occur to prevent the new President from taking over – including the discovery of some disability.  This provision was designed to fill this void.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 752.)

                John Copeland Nagle of The Heritage Foundation further explained, “Sections 3 and 4 [of this amendment] address an issue unrelated to the concern about lame-duck Congresses, namely, the circumstances in which the President or the President-elect dies.  In the words of Senator [George W.] Norris, Sections 3 and 4 ensure that `there can never arise a contingency where the country will be without a chief magistrate or without the method of selecting a chief magistrate.’  The nation has never had the occasion to put Senator Norris’s confidence to the test….”

(See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 420.)

Congressional Sessions

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.”  This provision states that Congress is required to meet together at least once each year and may select a different day of meeting other than January 3.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained, “There are always unforeseen circumstances which make it desirable to allow the Congress to adjust its opening session to an earlier or later time if necessary.  The possibility of war or other exigency might also make the change of date desirable.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 752.)

No Slavery or Involuntary Servitude

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:  “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”  This provision guarantees that each American has the right to be free.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained, “Congress had previously abolished slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories.  It had also repealed a fugitive slave law and had given freedom to Negroes who had served in the Union armies.

                “The Emancipation Proclamation had not liberated all of the slaves.  It had freed the slaves in the seceding states of the Confederation but it had provided for exceptions in certain parishes (counties) in Louisiana, a few counties in Virginia, and the entire state of Tennessee.  Furthermore, the slaves were not liberated in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, which had remained in the Union.  In addition to this, the validity of this proclamation under the war powers of the President was seriously questioned.

                “To remove any possible doubt as to the liberation of slaves everywhere within the United States, this amendment was adopted.

                “It is interesting that in the history of the United States not all of the slaves have been black.  In the early settlements in America many of the colonies had white slaves or persons who had been sold into peonage.  In fact, English felons were sold to the colonists to work out their terms of imprisonment in servitude.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 720.)

                Herman Belz of The Heritage Foundation explained, “The Thirteenth Amendment was intended to establish a positive guarantee of personal liberty, expressed in the negative form of a proscription of slavery or involuntary servitude.  Viewed in historical context and in the traditions of American political thought, the amendment is an affirmation of the idea that liberty, in the most fundamental sense, consists in the right of individuals not to be interfered with in the exercise of their natural rights.  As a guarantee of personal liberty for all persons in the United States, the amendment established a minimum national standard of equality.”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 380.) 

No Quartering of Soldiers

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  This Amendment guaranteed the American people that they would not be forced to open their homes to house soldiers without their consent during times of peace; it also guarantees that any wartime housing would be according to law.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained that “this had been a perennial problem” in England.  “The Petition of Right of 1628, which Charles I was compelled to accept, complained that `companies of soldiers and mariners had been dispersed into divers counties, and the inhabitants, against their wills, had been compelled to take them into their homes and allow them there to sojourn against the laws and customs of this realm.’  British authorities were still attempting to do the same thing when troops were sent to the colonies.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, pp. 700-701.)

                Andrew P. Morriss of The Heritage Foundation explained, “The Third Amendment combines a straight-forward ban on nonconsensual, peacetime quartering of soldiers in citizens’ houses with a requirement that wartime quartering be done by means approved by the legislature.  The brief congressional debates on the text make clear that the amendment reflects an effort to balance private property rights and the potential wartime need for military quarters.

                “The Anti-Federalists used the absence of a ban on quartering as an argument against ratification.  Once the concept of a Bill of Rights was agreed upon, however, there was little controversy over the inclusion of a ban on quartering.  Six of the original thirteen states also adopted constitutional provisions banning the quartering of soldiers….

                “Because of its clear text, there have been few court opinions discussing the Third Amendment.  The quartering problem has largely been solved today by paying communities to host military bases….”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 322-323.)

Petition the Government

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  This provision of the Constitution guarantees that the people can petition their government without worrying about the government causing problems for them.

                W. Cleon Skousen wrote:  “In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson denounced in the strongest possible terms the refusal of the king to give respectful consideration to the petitions of the people.  He wrote:

                “`In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms:  our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury….’

                “Of course, governments throughout the ages have resented petitions for the simple reason that they usually itemize the sins of government and the dereliction of administration by government offices.  Nevertheless, this is the safety valve by which governments survive.  Unless administrators are sensitive to the grievances of the people, the hostility of rebellious forces can reach a boiling temperature.  King George III learned this too late.  So did Louis XVI of France.  Constant communications between the government and its people is fundamental to an efficient administration.”  (See The Making of America – The substance and Meaning of the Constitution, pp. 689-690.)

                Skousen further explained “the five ways to petition the government for a `redress of grievances’”:  1) formal petition, 2) personal letter, 3) personal contact, 4) paid lobbyist, and 5) public demonstration.

                David Bernstein of The Heritage Foundation explained:  “The right to petition only guarantees that citizens can communicate with the sovereign through petitions.  It does not guarantee that the sovereign will respond in any particular way, or indeed, at all.  Parliament and colonial legislatures nevertheless felt obligated to respond to every petition, because those bodies had judicial as well as legislative functions.  In the American constitutional scheme, judicial power rests solely in the judicial branch, and the judiciary is the only branch of government that is always obligated to consider and respond to petitions submitted to it….

                “Congress initially took petitions very seriously, following the tradition of its colonial forebears….

                “The right to petition, along with the right to peaceable assembly, became less important as modern democratic politics gradually replaced petitioning and public protests as the primary means for constituents to express their views to their representatives.  Today, Congress treats most petitions in a pro forma way.  A Representative may present a petition on behalf of a private party to the Clerk of the House, who enters it in the Journal.

                “Although the right to petition is somewhat anachronistic in modern times and has largely been subsumed in the right to freedom of speech, it continues to have some independent weight….”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 317-318.)

No Religious Test

                The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday comes from Article VI, Section 3:  “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  This provision in the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to serve in any office without being judged for their religion. 

                I know of two presidential candidates who fought religious bias:  John F. Kennedy and Mitt Romney.  I remember as a child hearing people say that Kennedy could never be elected President because he was Catholic.  I know that he had to actually give a speech declaring that he could make decisions as President without consulting the Pope.  I realize also that many people did not vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon – even though the result was another term for Obama.  Even though the Constitution does not require a religious test, it is obvious that citizens hold candidates to a religious test.  I wonder if Barack Obama would have been elected even once if he had been honest about his true religious affiliation.

                Many of the early colonies were established by groups of people with strong religious convictions and those serving in public office were required to commit themselves to certain religious tenets.  This automatically excluded from public offices those who had contrary views.  For this reason the framers of the Constitution provided that no `religious test’ could be required for an office in the national government (where a great variety of beliefs and religious tenets – even atheism – would be represented.)”  (See W. Cleon Clausen, The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 666.)

                Gerard V. Bradley of The Heritage Foundation explained this provision:  “The original, unamended Constitution contains one explicit reference to religion:  the Article VI ban on religious tests for `any office or public trust under the United States.’  Despite much litigation over the constitutional border between church and state, there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious test ban.  The clause has been entirely self-executing.  We do not know whether the Framers intended the clause to apply to every federal officeholder, howsoever minor; but no federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious test for holding office.

                “By its lain terms, the ban extended only to federal officeholders.  States were free at the time of the Founding to impose religious tests as they saw fit.  All of them did.  State tests limited public offices to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants.  The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever.  National offices were open to everyone.”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 296-297.)