Constitutional Freedom

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2, to be discussed in a later post) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

The second half of Section two of Article one lays out the basic guidelines of when and how the division of representatives should be determined. Additionally, it introduces our first check and balance in introduced in the constitution and that is the power of impeachment. The power of impeachment could be used on the Executive branch of government which is discussed in Article Two of the Constitution. Any impeachment proceeding must be started by the House of Representatives, and then ratified by the Senate as we learned during the President William Clinton years.

The original constitution had as part of it what has come to be known as the three-fifths compromise. Remember that during this time period slavery was very prevalent in the South. These slaves were unable to vote; however, the representatives from the South insisted that they should be counted when considering enumeration of citizens. The representatives from the north felt that if the person was unable to vote they should not be counted for enumeration. The compromise was promoted by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, and was quite possibly a deal breaker for the Union if it had not been agreed upon. It is unfortunate that our nation ever went through a period where human beings were used as slaves, and considered 3/5ths a person.

Is the First Amendment more of a freedom or a protection? While the arguments on either side could fill a volume of encyclopedias, I would posit that it is both. Turning back to the arguments brought by the Framers, proponents described one object of the Bill of Rights is, “to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of government.” Nevertheless, in Federalist No. 84, Hamilton went so far as to call a bill of rights as not only “unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” Nonetheless, the Anti-Federalists won. Yet the important part is not so much which argument won, as is the process the men went through at the Constitutional Convention to arrive at a final compromise. The fact that the Framers took the time to dissect and rehash an exhausted argument, I believe, shaped the Constitution and resulting amendments we have today.

Essentially, the First Amendment most famously described as the Amendment regarding freedom of the press and freedom of speech, preserves our rights and liberties in those realms. However, it accomplishes much more than a simple preservation of rights. While it is lauded for permitting peaceful public assembly and the right of the press to voice concerns and publish newsworthy information; it also shelters the American people from themselves. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Couched within the framework of the First Amendment are protections that have developed with regard to defamation. There are also limits upon where people may voice their opinions and how; even though many of such limits are subject to tests of strict Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it can be better said that freedom is a protection in and of itself. Still, I would add that our freedoms need bounds. Perhaps, this mirrors the fear expressed by Hamilton that a bill of rights would be dangerous and “would afford a colorable pretext [for individuals] to claim more than were granted.” Even today, I would wager that some still hold similar fears as those of Hamilton. However, I believe the very essence and conduct of the Constitutional Convention should assuage those fears as it stands a model of what the First Amendment’s freedoms are all about.

The Convention not only allowed dialogue and argument, but actually encouraged discussion of controversial issues. Nevertheless, decorum was essential and fully recognized within the walls of the Convention. Like the Framers realized, our Constitutional freedoms should never be removed from us, but must be acted upon and utilized within a framework of established civility necessary to the preservation of society. Without so-called limitations upon our freedoms, we would not live in a democracy, but an anarchy.

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

This particular post reviews two fundamental features of the U.S. Constitution. First is the right to vote for our House Representatives every two years. Second are the requirements for an individual to run for membership in the House.

If we are currently over the age of 18 years and are U.S. citizens, we have the opportunity to vote. This right was not initially granted to all individuals in our nation (will be discussed in a later post), but is now currently available to all citizens. Therefore, we should be grateful and proud of that right, and remember to exercise it every two years. The advantage to having the two year system is that it forces members of the House of Representatives to listen and follow the demands of those who elected them. Otherwise they could lose the opportunity to represent their particular district.

A counter argument to the two year cycle, is that members of the House will be too busy constantly running a political campaign that they will fail in their primary responsibility which is to assist in running the affairs of the nation. This argument is valid, and was considered during the debate by the Constitution’s founders. Ultimately they determined that the benefits of the two year cycle out-weighed the failings, and wrote that in as a part of Article 1.

The requirements to run for elected office as a member of the House of Representatives may be seen as the least stringent of requirements. You need to be just 25 years of age and a U.S. citizen for just 7 years. This broadens the range of individuals that may be elected, and allows the people additional freedom to choose their representative of choice.

Have you considered running for elected office? Maybe you should consider it, or at the very least get involved!

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The US Constitution setup from the very beginning a “Bicameral” legislative system.  Bicameral means, “having two branches, chambers, or houses, as a legislative body.”  The Bicameral system was modeled after the British system.  By comparison, the British Parlimentary system employs a House of Commons and a House of Lords.

The US model was designed primarily by James Madison from Virginia.  He recognized the necessity of  a system that allowed for checks and balances.  The “Great Compromise” to the plan, was designed by Roger Sherman.  The compromise was primarily about how the members of the house and senate would be elected.  The compromise was effectively between the populous states and the smaller states.  The populous states felt that it might be unfair to allow for a system that simply allowed representations based upon the criteria of being a state.  This would give the advantage to the smaller states, as their fewer citizens would have greater per-capita representation.  The other proposal would be to allow seats based solely upon number of citizens in the state.  This would give the advantage to the populous states, which would have many more representatives and could effectively guide federal policy to their state’s advantage.  The smaller states were therefore opposed to this method.

Therefore, the great compromise was to allow the Senate to be elected on the basis of equal representation per state, ie there are 2 senators now for every state. The House of Representatives would be elected based upon population.  Therefore, each state has a different number of representatives based upon their respective number of citizens.  At the time of this writing there is 1 representative for about every 693,000 citizens.

Currently there is debate about the District of Columbia, as they do not have voting representation in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

What do you think, should the District of Columbia be given voting representation?