It was the necessity for team work in carrying on the War for Independence that led the thirteen American colonies for the first time to unite under a common government. They had revolted to escape from an autocratic government, and they sought to avoid setting up another in its place. Since it had been the king whom they distrusted most, they endeavored to get along without any executive head at all. Their new government consisted solely of a Congress of delegates from the thirteen states.
This form of government was continued for several years after the Revolution under a constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. It was, however, unsuccessful in securing anything like real national cooperation. The Congress had no power to levy and collect taxes, it had little power to make laws, and it was without means to execute the laws that it did make. The real governing power during this period was with the several states. The result was a period of unutterable confusion which has been called "the critical period of American history." The question at stake was whether a number of self-governing state communities with a multitude of apparently conflicting interests could really become a nation.
During the war Benjamin Franklin had said, "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately." The states had "hung together" sufficiently to win the war; but the wise men of the time now saw the need for a government so organized and with such powers as to secure effective cooperation among all the states and all the people at all times for the welfare of the entire Union, while leaving each state free to manage its own local affairs. Therefore a convention of delegates from all the states was called together at Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation. The result was our present Constitution under which our present national government went into effect in 1789.
Investigate and report:
The nature and causes of the confusion during "the critical period" of American history.
The leading men of the Constitutional Convention.
How the states ratified the Constitution.
Which of the original thirteen states did not ratify theConstitution until after it had gone into effect.
The number of states required to ratify before the Constitution went into effect (Constitution, Art. VII).
"We, the people of the United States" "ordained and established" the Constitution (see the Preamble). It was also "ordained" in the Constitution (Art. V) that it could be amended only by methods designed to give the people control over the matter—greater control than they have over ordinary lawmaking. A great many amendments have been proposed in the course of time, but only eighteen have so far been adopted,[Footnote: A nineteenth amendment is at this writing before the states for ratification— the woman suffrage amendment.] ten of these having been adopted in the very beginning as a condition on which the states would accept the Constitution at all. None of these amendments changed the form of our government except with respect to the methods of electing the President and United States senators (Amendments XII and XVII).
Explain the two methods of proposing, and the two methods of ratifying, amendments (Constitution, Art. VII).
Has there ever been a national constitutional convention called by the states?
Which of the two methods of ratifying was used in the case of the last amendment adopted? [Footnote: Ohio by a referendum in 1919 submitted the eighteenth amendment to the people of the state for their vote, after it had been ratified by the legislature. This was the first time in our history that an amendment to the Constitution was submitted to popular vote for ratification.]
Did your state vote to ratify or to reject the last amendment?
If any amendment is now before the states for ratification, watch the newspapers for the action of the various states.
The Constitution adopted in 1787 has met the needs of our growing nation in a most remarkable way. It would be a mistake, however, to think that it has always met new conditions perfectly, or that we are governed to-day exactly as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Although few amendments have been made, INTERPRETATIONS have been placed on the Constitution that were probably unthought of by the framers or by the people who ratified it; and PRACTICES have grown up in our government that have made it quite a different government from that which was anticipated. Our government is a GROWING thing, and one of the chief merits of our Constitution is the fact that it speaks in such general terms that it has been possible, under it, to adapt our government to new and unexpected conditions. In this respect it differs from the detailed state constitutions.
On the other hand, conditions have arisen with the growth of our nation that our Constitution has not enabled us to meet with the greatest success, and that we have not yet met by amendment. In some cases we have tried to get around the difficulties by devices not provided for in the Constitution, sometimes with unfortunate results. But a recognition of defects in our government should not cause us to lose respect for the Constitution. They are due not to positive blunders on the part of the framers, but to the mere absence of provision for conditions that did not exist when the Constitution was framed and that could not be foreseen by the wisest men of that time. The wise course for all good citizens is to seek to understand clearly wherein our government fails to meet our needs, if it does fail, and then to seek to correct the difficulty, under the existing terms of the Constitution if possible, or by amendment of the Constitution if that becomes clearly necessary. Amendment of the Constitution was purposely made difficult, and this was doubtless wise, for it tends to prevent changes without full consideration of their needs and probable effects. Radical changes in our form of government and in our established laws are always fraught with danger. Because of the extreme complexity of community life a change effected at one point to meet a particular evil may have consequences of the most far-reaching kind and in the most unexpected directions. A change that corrects one evil may produce conditions resulting in evils even worse than the first. Changes are necessary at times, but they should be made only after the most careful consideration by men of the widest possible experience.
One thing that stood out clearly after the Revolution was the fear of a strong national government. Some of the states refused to ratify the Constitution unless amendments were added at once guaranteeing the liberties of the people. The first ten amendments, known as the "bill of rights," were the result. To make sure that no important rights were left unguarded, the ninth amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Read the first ten amendments and discuss the meaning of each.
It was clearly expected that most of the governing powers to which the people were subject should be exercised by the states, and not by the national government. The national government was to exercise no powers except such as were DELEGATED to it in the Constitution. These powers are important ones, but few in number, and are listed in section 8 of Article I. In order to make this limitation of powers perfectly clear, the tenth amendment declares that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Certain powers were also expressly denied to the national government in section 9 of Article I.
Discuss the meaning of each clause in Article I, section 8.
Discuss the meaning of each clause in Article I, section 9.
The powers of the national government relate to interstate and foreign affairs, or to matters that the several states could not well regulate without confusion or injustice. For example, it was chiefly the confusion in matters pertaining to trade in the period following the Revolution that made the new government necessary. Therefore power was given to it "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." So, also, it was given power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures," for varying systems of coinage and of weights and measures would be inconvenient. For similar reasons it was empowered "to establish post-offices and post-roads," "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" for immigrants, and "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" by giving copyrights and patents to authors and inventors. The states, on the other hand, were expressly forbidden to exercise any control over some such matters of national and international concern in section 10 of Article I.
Read section 10, Art I, and discuss the reasons why the powers there mentioned should have been denied to the states.
Not only did the framers of the Constitution carefully limit the powers that the national government might exercise, but they also introduced into the organization of the government various devices to control it and to prevent any of its parts from assuming too much power. The most important of these is the system of CHECKS AND BALANCES. In our national government, as in the state governments, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are SEPARATED. In early times in England, the king could make any laws he wished, he could enforce them as he pleased, and he controlled the courts of justice. In our government the legislature, composed of representatives of the people, makes the laws; the executive branch of government sees to their enforcement; and the courts, which are responsible neither to the legislature nor to the executive, interpret the laws and administer justice in accordance with the laws. This separation of powers is to prevent any one person or group of persons from exercising too much power, as the king did, and is a safeguard to the liberty of the people. But the separation of powers IS NOT COMPLETE. Each branch of government has A LIMITED CONTROL over the others. This constitutes THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, which still further protects the people's liberties.
While the President cannot make the laws, he is given a check upon the lawmaking power of Congress by his veto power. On the other hand, he cannot, by an excessive use of his veto power, destroy the lawmaking power of Congress, because Congress may pass laws over the President's veto by means of a two-thirds vote.
The President cannot make a treaty, nor appoint men to office, without the consent of the senate; neither can he exercise his executive powers until Congress votes him the necessary money.
If Congress passes a law that is contrary to the Constitution the courts may declare the law void, and the executive cannot enforce it. The courts, on the other hand, are in a measure under the control of both Congress and the President, for Congress may create and destroy courts (except those created by the Constitution), and the President, with the consent of the senate, appoints the judges.
The "checks and balances" in the organization of our government have been very effective in accomplishing the purpose for which they were intended, namely, to protect the liberties of the people against despotic government. But they have also, at times, been an obstacle to team work and to effective service. It sometimes happens, for example, that the President represents one political party, while the majority of one or both houses of Congress are of the opposing party. The two branches of government may then enter into a struggle on partisan grounds, each trying to defeat the program of the other. Such a situation was probably unforeseen by the framers of the Constitution, although it again reminds us of Washington's warning with regard to the dangers of the party spirit.
With the growth of our nation, the national government has come to perform a vast amount of service, as we have seen in earlier chapters, and to regulate the lives of the people in a multitude of ways little dreamed of by the makers of the Constitution. This has been possible because of the principle of IMPLIED POWERS in the Constitution. This means that some of the powers expressly granted in the Constitution have been broadly interpreted to IMPLY powers not expressly stated. There are certain clauses in the Constitution that especially lend themselves to such broad interpretation. For example, after the enumeration of the powers which Congress may exercise, in section 8 of Article I, clause 18 of that section gives Congress power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers …" Another clause whose liberal interpretation has been responsible for much of the service performed by the national government is that giving it the power to regulate interstate commerce (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 3).
In the early days of our government the Federalist party, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, proposed the creation of a NATIONAL BANK. The Republican party under Jefferson opposed this because the Constitution did not expressly provide for it, and because it was feared that it would give the national government too much power. But the "broad constructionists" argued that a national bank was a "necessary and proper" means to enable the national government "to borrow money on the credit of the United States" and to exercise other financial powers expressly granted in the Constitution. The supreme court of the United States supported the latter view, and the national bank became a fact.
The building of roads and other internal improvements by the national government have always been opposed by the "strict constructionists," except where roads were clearly "post-roads" (Article 1, section.8, clause 7). But the "broad constructionists" argued that roads were "necessary and proper" to provide "for the common defense," and also as a means "to regulate commerce among the several states."
Most of the work that the national government has done for the promotion of the public health, such as the passage and enforcement of the "pure food and drugs act," the inspection of livestock and of slaughterhouses, and the attempt to regulate child labor, has been done under the authority of the clause giving Congress power to regulate interstate commerce.
It has been the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to decide finally whether much of the new service undertaken by the national government is in accordance with the Constitution or not, and this court has been responsible for most of the expansion of the service rendered, because of its liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
Why should the power to regulate interstate commerce also give Congress the power to require the inspection of cattle in your neighborhood? or to forbid the use of harmful substances in patent medicines? or to forbid the employment in factories of children?
Find out what you can about the influence of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in extending the powers of the national government.
The Constitution vests the executive power in the President of the United States (Art. II, sec. I), and he alone is responsible to the people for the execution of the laws. The people are protected against abuse of this power in the hands of one man by various constitutional provisions. The President's term of office is limited to four years, though he may be reelected. In case of improper conduct in office, he may be removed by IMPEACHMENT. The impeachment charges must be brought against him by the House of Representatives, and the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, must act as a court to try the case. Moreover, even the President must act according to law, and in so far as his duties are not prescribed by the Constitution they are prescribed by Congress. Congress must also create the machinery by which the President executes the laws, and it must appropriate the necessary money. The Senate exercises a further control over the President in that it must approve all appointments and all treaties made by him.
The method of electing the President provided in the Constitution was intended to insure a wise choice, and also shows a lack of complete confidence in the people on the part of the framers of the Constitution. He was to be elected by a body of ELECTORS, chosen by the several states "in such manner as the legislatures thereof may direct," the number of electors from each state to equal the whole number of senators and representatives from that state (Art. II, sec. 2). These electors were originally chosen by the legislatures of the states, but are now elected by the people. When voters "vote for the President" every four years, they in reality only vote for these electors who, in turn, cast their votes for the President.
In the method of electing the President we find one of the points where the intention of the framers of the Constitution has clearly been thwarted. It was obviously the intention that the electors chosen by the states should use their own discretion in the choice of the President. But in practice to-day, the entire body of electors from each state always represents the victorious political party, and casts its vote invariably for the presidential candidate already nominated by the party machinery. We still elect the electors, and the electors go through the form of electing the President; but their part in the procedure is now entirely useless.
The Vice-President of the United States is elected at the same time and by the same method as the President. But he has no executive duties whatever so long as the President is capable of performing his duties. In order that he might have something to do, he was made presiding officer of the Senate, but even there he has no vote.
Investigate and report:
The qualifications necessary to hold the office of President(Const., Art. II, sec. I, cl. 5).
How the electors elect the President (Const., Amend. XII).
Who would become President if both the President and the Vice-President should die.
The salary of the President.
The oath taken by the President on assuming office. The difference between an oath and an affirmation (Art. II, sec. i, cl. 8).
The powers of the President (Art. II, sec. 2).
A President who was impeached.
Why no President has been elected for a third term.
Advantages and disadvantages of a longer term for the President.
The President is at the head of a stupendous service organization which was not ready-made by the Constitution, but which has been gradually created by acts of Congress under its express and implied powers. The Constitution did not even create the great administrative departments through which the President works, although it implied that such departments should be created: "The President … may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices" (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. i). The heads of these departments are appointed by the President, are responsible to him, and may be removed by him. Together they constitute the President's CABINET, meeting with him frequently to discuss the affairs of their departments and matters of public policy.
Five of these administrative departments were created during Washington's administration. These five have grown to cover a multitude of activities that were not at first contemplated, and five other great departments have since been created.
The DEPARTMENT OF STATE maintains relations between the United States and foreign powers. The Secretary of State, acting for the President, negotiates treaties with foreign governments, and is in constant communication with the ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other representatives of our government in foreign countries, and with similar representatives of foreign governments in this country. This department is the medium of communication between the President and the governors of the several states. The Secretary of State has in his keeping the treaties and laws of the United States, and also the Great Seal of the United States, which he affixes to proclamations, commissions, and other official papers. Through him the rights of American citizens in foreign countries are looked after. He is first in rank among the members of the cabinet, and by law would succeed to the Presidency in case of the death or disability of both the President and the Vice- President.
The DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY has at its head the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the financial manager of the national government. He prepares plans for, and superintends the collection of, the public revenues; determines the manner of keeping the public accounts; directs the coinage and printing of money. He also controls the construction and maintenance of public buildings, and administers the public health service and the life- saving service.
The DEPARTMENT OF WAR is directed by the Secretary of War, who, under the President, controls the military establishment and superintends the national defense. He also administers river and harbor improvements, the prevention of obstruction to navigation, and the building of bridges over navigable rivers when authorized by Congress. He also has direction of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, which supervises the government of Porto Rico and the Philippines.
The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE has at its head the Attorney General, who is the chief law officer of the government, and represents it in all matters of a legal nature. He is the legal adviser of the President and of the several executive departments, and supervises all United States attorneys and marshals in the judicial districts into which the country is divided.
The POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT is administered by the PostmasterGeneral.
The DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, under the Secretary of the Navy, has charge of the "construction, manning, equipment, and employment of vessels of war."
The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR was created to relieve the Department of State of work relating to internal affairs, and now embraces a wide variety of duties. At its head is the Secretary of the Interior. Through many bureaus and divisions it administers the public lands, the national parks, the giving of patents for inventions, the pensioning of soldiers, Indian affairs, education, the reclamation service, the geological survey, the improvement of mining methods for the safety of miners, certain matters pertaining to the territories of the United States, and certain institutions in the District of Columbia.
The DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE is directed by the Secretary ofAgriculture. Its work is described in Chapter XII.
The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, under the Secretary of Commerce, promotes the commercial interests of the country in many ways. It includes in its organization the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, the Bureau of Corporations, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Lighthouses, the Bureau of Navigation, the Bureau of Fisheries, and the Bureau of Standards.
The DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, under the Secretary of Labor, has for its purpose "fostering, promoting, and developing the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, improving their working conditions, and advancing their opportunities for profitable employment." Among its important bureaus are those of Immigration and of Naturalization, and the Children's Bureau, which investigates and reports upon "all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people."
In addition to these great administrative departments with their numerous bureaus and subdivisions, there are various boards, commissions and establishments that are independent of the departments.
Some of the most important of these are the Interstate CommerceCommission, the Civil Service Commission (see below), the FederalReserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, the United StatesTariff Commission, the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, theUnited States Bureau of Efficiency, the Federal Board ofVocational Education, the Panama Canal.
Of another kind are the Library of Congress which includes theCopyright Office; the Government Printing Office; the SmithsonianInstitution, including the National Museum and the NationalZoological Park.
There are many others. During the recent war a great variety of new administrative commissions and boards were created for the emergency. Most of these have been, or are to be, discontinued, though some of them may survive. Such were the Council of National Defense, the Committee on Public Information, the Food Administration, the Fuel Administration, the United States Shipping Board, the War Trade Board, the Director General of Railroads.
The detailed work of this vast service organization is carried on by about 400,000 employees (not counting the army and the navy). These constitute the CIVIL SERVICE. The quality of service depends largely upon the efficiency of these employees. The task of filling all these places is a large one. In Andrew Jackson's administration (1829-1837) the "spoils system" was introduced, which means that government positions were treated by the victorious party as "the spoils of victory," to be given to members of the victorious party as rewards for party service without much regard to fitness for the work to be done. Whenever the administration passed from one party to another, the army of civil service employees was displaced by another of new employees. Not only did this result in inefficient service, but the time of the President and the heads of the departments was largely consumed in considering the claims of those seeking appointment.
Moreover, since appointments could be made only "with the advice and consent" of the Senate, senators were besieged by applicants for positions and their friends. The President, overwhelmed by the multitude of appointments to be made, came to rely almost wholly upon the advice of the senators, and even of members of the House of Representatives, for appointments in their states and districts. Thus, in effect, appointments were made by members of Congress rather than by the President who was really responsible. No system could have been devised more wasteful of the time of the executive and legislative branches of the government, or more conducive to inefficiency.
The spoils system became a great offense to the nation, but it was not until President Garfield was murdered by a disappointed office seeker that Congress, in 1883, passed a law for the reform of the civil service. Candidates for many positions in the civil service were required to pass an examination designed to prove their fitness for the work to be done, and a CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION was created to administer the law and to conduct the examinations, which are held at stated intervals in different parts of the country. Those appointed under this system cannot be removed except for cause. Even at the present time, however, only about half of the civil service is subject to this MERIT SYSTEM. From the above description of the work of the several executive departments select topics for special investigation and report; such as:
The work of United States Consuls. Coining money; the UnitedStates Bureau of Engraving.
The life-saving service of the United States.
The United States Army in war and peace.
The United States Army as an organization to save life, especially in its work of sanitation in territories occupied.
Representatives of the United States Department of Justice in your community, and examples of their work.
Building a battleship. Training for the navy.
Exploits of the navy in war. The work of the navy in time of peace.
The work of the patent office; of the bureau of Indian affairs; of the geological survey; of the bureau of mines.
Taking the United States census.
The work of the bureau of fisheries.
Marvels of the bureau of standards.
The immigration bureau.
Work of the children's bureau.
How an immigrant is naturalized.
The Government Printing Office.
The Congressional Library.
The spoils system in Andrew Jackson's administration.
How would you go about it to take an examination for the civil service?
Is there any reason why a mail carrier or a clerk in a government office should be a Republican or a Democrat?
What employees of the United States civil service are there in your community?
Efficient government requires strong, clearly recognized leadership. Democratic government requires that its leadership shall be responsive to the needs of the people and under their control. The problem of how to secure strong leadership and controlled leadership at one and the same time is a difficult one. So far as the executive branch of government alone is concerned, the framers of the Constitution secured strength by concentrating full responsibility in the President. But did they expect him to be their leader in the government as a whole; that is, in formulating the policies of government that should serve as the basis for legislation? We are in the habit of thinking of him as our national leader, but was he made so in fact?
In fact, the framers of the Constitution were apparently more concerned about maintaining control over the President than about clearly making him the nation's leader. About the only indication the Constitution contains that he was to be such a leader is the statement that he "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Art. II, sec.3). He does submit recommendations to Congress at the opening of each of its terms and often at other times. If the President and the majority in Congress are of the same political party, Congress is pretty likely to follow the President's lead; or, if the President has a commanding personality and is clearly popular with the people, he may force measures through even an unwilling Congress. But if differences arise between the President and Congress, especially when one or both houses of Congress are of the opposite party from the President, his recommendations may be entirely ignored. By our system of "checks and balances" the President is "controlled," but he ceases to be a leader when he does not have the "following" of Congress, or of the majority of the people.
President Wilson began his second administration with a majority in both houses of Congress of his political party, and apparently in popular favor. He was clearly accepted as leader and practically all of his proposed measures were favorably acted upon by Congress. In the middle of this administration a congressional election occurred which resulted in a majority in both houses of the opposing party. This result might be considered as a popular vote against the leadership of the President, and his opponents did consider it so. It cannot be absolutely certain that this was intended, for the people were not voting directly on this question. Whether this was true or not, Congress refused to follow his leadership in many important questions, including the treaty of peace with Germany.
It will be helpful to compare this situation with the method by which England has worked out the problem of leadership and control of leadership.
The real executive head in the English government is the prime minister. The king appoints the prime minister, but he always chooses for the position THE RECOGNIZED LEADER OF THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT IS IN THE MAJORITY in the House of Commons (which corresponds to our House of Representatives).
The prime minister having been appointed, he then selects the other members of his cabinet, who are to be the heads of the executive departments, and WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
The prime minister and the other members of the cabinet have seats in the House of Commons, contrary to the practice in our country. THEY ALSO TAKE THE LEAD IN LEGISLATION, for most of the important bills considered in the House of Commons are planned and introduced by the cabinet. So the executive and legislative branches of the English government are not separated as in our country. The same group of men manage the service organization and lead in planning the legislation that makes the service possible.
It sometimes happens, however, that the cabinet introduces a measure which, after discussion, a majority of the House of Commons rejects. This means that on this question the cabinet no longer represents the majority in the House. Then one of two things happens. EITHER THE CABINET RESIGNS in a body to make way for a new cabinet that does represent the majority; OR THE PRIME MINISTER ASKS FOR A GENERAL ELECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. If at this election a majority is again returned that is opposed to the cabinet, it means that the cabinet no longer leads the people, and it resigns. If a majority is returned in support of the cabinet, it means that the old House was no longer representative of the people, and the old cabinet retains its leadership.
This system gives the English people MORE DIRECT CONTROL over their government than we have in our country; it is very much like the method of RECALL that is used in some of our states. At the same time, it assures a real executive leadership WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT, a leadership that is both responsive and responsible to the people.
Not only does our Constitution fail to provide clearly for responsible leadership within the government, but our system of "checks and balances," our party system of government, and the organization and rules of Congress, all taken together, have tended to confuse our leadership, and to impose upon us an irresponsible leadership, OUTSIDE of the government as outlined by the Constitution. To understand this it will first be necessary to examine the organization of Congress.
Congress, like the state legislatures, consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate; this being another instance of "checks and balances."
The creation of two chambers in the Congress made possible a satisfactory settlement of a dispute in the Constitutional Convention with regard to the basis of representation. The larger states wanted representation proportional to their population, while the smaller states, insisted upon EQUAL representation for all the states. It was settled that there should be equal representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. This is one of a series of compromises that had to be made between the two parties in the convention. In fact, the Constitution is a series of compromises from beginning to end. Only thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates in the convention signed the Constitution, and it is probable that no one even of the thirty-nine was wholly pleased with it.
The number of representatives in the first Congress from each state was fixed in the Constitution, and provision made for a census in 1790 and every ten years thereafter, on the basis of which a reapportionment should be made. At present there are 435 members of the House, one for about every 212,000 of the population. They are elected by direct vote of the people, one from each of the CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS into which each state is divided, and for a term of two years.
There are two senators from each state. The Constitution provided that they were to be elected by the state legislatures, another evidence of distrust of the people. In 1913, the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution was enacted, providing for the election of senators by popular vote, showing the growing spirit of democracy and the distrust of the state legislatures. Senators are elected for six years, but the term of only one third of them expires at the same time, so that at least two thirds of the Senate have always had at least two years' experience. No citizen may become a senator until he is thirty years of age, while one may become a member of the lower house at twenty-five.
The House of Representatives has one important power not possessed by the Senate: it alone can originate bills for raising revenue. This is because the representatives were supposed to be more directly representative of the people than the senators. However, the Senate may amend such bills, and often succeeds in forcing the House to accept such radical amendments as practically to destroy the advantage possessed by the latter in its power to originate the bills.
In addition to its lawmaking powers, the Senate was intended to be an advisory council to the President. Only with its "advice and consent" may the President make appointments and treaties.
Investigate and report on the following:
The compromises of the Constitution.
The census of 1920.
The number of congressional districts in your state, and the number of the one you live in.
The names of your representative and senators.
The qualifications for election to the House of Representatives and to the Senate (Art. I, secs. 2 and 3). Compare with the qualifications for election to the two houses of your legislature.
The characteristics of the Senate that make it more conservative than the House of Representatives. The meaning of "conservatism."
Why the Senate should be more conservative than the House.
The "long" and "short" sessions of Congress.
How vacancies in Congress are filled between elections.
Legislation in which the representative from your district has been especially interested during the last session of Congress.
In England a member of the House of Commons is not required to be a resident of the district which he represents. Arguments for and against this plan.
Debate the question: RESOLVED, that our Constitution should be amended to provide for a "responsible cabinet government" as in England.
The presiding officer of the Senate is the Vice-President of the United States, while that of the House of Representatives is a SPEAKER elected by the House. The Vice-President has no vote in the Senate except in case of a tie, when he may cast the deciding vote. The Speaker, on the other hand, has all the rights of any other member and has large powers by virtue of his position. He is always elected by a strictly party vote, and therefore represents the majority party in the House.
As in the state legislatures, and for the same reason, most of the work of legislation in Congress is done by standing committees, of which there are about sixty in the House and about seventy-five in the Senate. As in the state legislatures, these committees are chosen on party lines, the chairmen and the majority of the members always being of the majority party. The procedure by which legislation is carried on in Congress is very much the same as that in the state legislatures, and has the same advantages and disadvantages. There is even greater necessity for the committee organization and for rules because of the vastly greater number of bills introduced. In a recent Congress more than 33,000 bills were introduced in the House of Representatives alone. Whereas in the state legislatures some of the rules of procedure are fixed by the state constitutions, the rules of Congress are determined entirely by each house for itself. The committee on rules in each house, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen of the committees in both houses, may run things as they see fit. That this is done there is plenty of evidence, such as the following words of a member of Congress:
You send important questions to a committee, you put into the hands of a few men the power to bring in bills, and then they are brought in with an ironclad rule, and rammed down the throats of members; and then those measures are sent out as being the deliberate judgment of the Congress of the United States when no deliberate judgment has been expressed by any man.
It is this procedure in Congress that causes leadership to become diffused, hidden, and often to pass outside of the government altogether into the hands of "bosses" and special "interests." There can be no well-conceived PLAN worked out by responsible leaders and approved by Congress as a whole. There may be "plans," worked out by leaders in Congress, but they are likely to be plans designed to serve party ends rather than to promote a well- thought-out program of national development. Thousands of bills of the greatest variety are introduced by individual members and handled by different committees acting independently of one another and often at cross purposes.
The legislative and executive branches of government are each extremely jealous of any encroachment upon its powers by the other. It is not always easy to decide just where the dividing line lies between the powers properly exercised by each. It is maintained on the one hand that Congress is encroaching on the rightful domain of the executive; and at least it is true that while it denies the President responsible leadership in determining the policies of the government, it has failed to substitute any other responsible leadership, and has even made leadership obscure. On the other hand, it is maintained that the executive encroaches upon the powers of Congress. While this chapter was being written a member of the House of Representatives made a speech in which he said:
This bill presents a fine specimen of bureaucratic legislation. [Footnote: "Bureaucratic legislation" here means lawmaking by bureaus in the executive branch of the government.] If the Congress ever intends, as it surely does, to regain the powers granted it by the fathers, of which it is now temporarily deprived by bureaucratic encroachment, now is the time to start upon such a campaign by defeating by a decisive majority the bill now offered for your consideration … Every time you weaken Congress by the establishment of a bureau in which the authority of Congress is lessened, you lay one more stone in the erection of the temple of autocracy … These bureaus are not only legislating by administrative processes but are usurping the power and prerogatives of the people's courts …
It is the business of the people's representatives in the law- making branch of government not merely to make laws, but also to watch and control the executive. The great English philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), thus stated the purpose of the English House of Commons:
To watch and control the government; [Footnote: "Government" here refers to the executive branch.] to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full explanation and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable; to be at once the nation's committee on grievances; an arena in which not only the opinion of the nation, but that of every section of it, and as far as possible, of every eminent individual that it contains, can produce itself in full sight and challenge full discussion.
As we have seen, the English House of Commons has a way to control executive leadership without destroying it. Even if we desired to do so, we could not adopt the English plan without changing our Constitution. But there are ways in which the same result could in a measure be accomplished without such change. One of these is by a well-organized BUDGET SYSTEM.
The methods of making appropriations for the purposes of our national government have been as unbusinesslike as in the states. Charges of extravagance and inefficiency have been made freely, the blame being placed sometimes upon Congress and sometimes upon the executive departments. Both are at fault; and the difficulty is that it is almost impossible to fix the responsibility anywhere.
Although the national government, unlike the states, has a single- headed executive, the executive departments are composed of a multitude of bureaus and other subdivisions that are not well organized in their relations to one another. There is overlapping, duplication, and even conflict of work. The director of finance of the War Department said that in the recent war,
The War Department entered this war without any fixed or carefully digested and prepared financial system. There were at the beginning of the war five … bureaus each independent of the others, each making its own contracts, doing its own purchasing, doing its own accounting, with as many different methods as there were bureaus. As a result they were competing with each other in a market where the supplies in many cases for which they were competing were restricted in amount … There was no central authority to prune, revise, or compare estimates submitted and to coordinate expenditures, and that naturally resulted in overlappings and duplications, and some of them of a large amount. [Footnote: Testimony before Budget Committee, quoted by Will Payne, "Your Budget," Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 32.]
The responsibility is partly in the executive department; but it is also partly in Congress, for it creates bureaus, defines their duties, appropriates money for them. And in Congress the responsibility is divided among various committees.
One committee or subcommittee has supervision of building the barracks at a given army post while another committee or subcommittee has supervision of building the hospital at the same post. One committee has jurisdiction of the guns, another committee has jurisdiction of the emplacement of the guns. All committees are jealous of their own prerogatives and sometimes more or less jealous of other committees. [Footnote: Will Payne, "Your Budget," SATURDAY EVENING POST, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 166.]
Each year the executive departments submit to the Secretary of the Treasury an estimate of the amount of money they think they will need. The Secretary of the Treasury puts these estimates together without revision and without criticism and submits them to Congress, together with an estimate of the probable revenues available. While there is a committee on appropriations in each house of Congress,
… one class of appropriations after another has been taken away from this committee and intrusted to other committees until, as a result, the work of preparing appropriations in the House of Representatives is broken up so that there are now no less than fourteen general appropriation bills prepared by seven different committees … In the preparation of their bills the committee on appropriations and the other committees in charge of appropriations are really compelled to work more or less blindly. Sometimes they hold extensive hearings endeavoring to get a complete grasp of the multitudinous detailed expenditures for which they must provide. But, of course, it is impossible for the several committees, in the time at their disposal, to give even minor matters the amount of attention demanded by sound public economy. [Footnote: C. A. Beard, AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, pp. 366, 367.]
The first principles of a budget, according to students of government, are that it should be prepared by the executive branch of the government, which is responsible for spending the money; that it should be prepared by an agency responsible directly to the President, and with authority to revise and adjust the estimates of the several departments in the light of the needs and resources of the government as a whole; and that it should be based upon an accounting system that will show clearly how efficiently each department and minor subdivision is doing its work. As this chapter is being written, a bill is before Congress which, if passed, will more or less completely accomplish these results.
It remains for Congress, however, to make the appropriations requested in the budget, with such modifications as may be shown to be wise. It is generally accepted that appropriations cannot be wisely made under the present system, and that responsibility for them must be centered in one committee in each house.
This change will necessitate a change in the rules which can only be made by each house for itself. A resolution has been introduced in the House of Representatives recommending this change, but it has not at this writing been acted upon.
In the English House of Commons, when the appropriation bill is introduced, the House becomes in effect a court before which the prime minister and his cabinet are placed on trial to defend their budget. The whole House is in session. The minority party, which conducts the opposition, employs counsel, and by its searching inquiries compels the cabinet to explain and defend the budget at every point. By this procedure the public is informed as to the work and program of the government, and the executive leaders held strictly to account.
A budget system, however good it may be, like all other governmental machinery is merely an organization for team work, and will do very little good unless the team work is forthcoming, not only among the various branches and departments of government, but also on the part of the citizens.
If there is a real budget it has got to be your budget. It will be good, bad or indifferent finally just in proportion to your interest in it and your expression of that interest at the polls and elsewhere. If there is a good budget system—not on paper, but in actual practice—you've got to make it. If, when a budget bill is finally enacted you say, "Well, that job is done," and dismiss it from your mind there will be no lasting gain … [Footnote: Will Payne, "Your Budget," SATURDAY EVENING POST January 3, 1920, p. 30.]
Effective control over government can be exercised only by PUBLIC OPINION and PUBLIC INTEREST. We may have any kind of government we want, if we only want it badly enough, and only when we want it badly enough. The blame for inefficiency and wastefulness on the part of government at Washington, or at the state capital, or at the county seat, rests largely with the people back home, who are either selfish or blind to the fact that the interests of the nation are larger than their own or those of their own little community. The very people who talk most loudly about the extravagance of government, or about the burden of taxes, are likely to be the ones who expect most from their congressmen for purely personal or local advantage. They are likely to judge their representative's fitness for his position more by his ability to get funds from the public treasury for local gratification than by his attitude toward great national questions.
Investigate and report on the following:
The present Speaker of the House of Representatives, and some of the more important members.
Leaders in the Senate at the present time.
A list of some of the more important committees in each House ofCongress.
The procedure by which a bill becomes a law, from the time when it is introduced to the time it goes into effect as a law of the land.
Bills introduced in Congress by the representative from your district. The purposes of these bills. (Consult at home, at your public library, at your newspaper office.)
Follow the course of debate on some measure in the House ofRepresentatives or the Senate in the files of the CongressionalRecord (files may be found at your public library, or at thenewspaper offices, if not in your school).
Conflict of opinion regarding the powers of the President and of the Senate in connection with the discussion of the treaty of peace with Germany.
"Filibustering" in Congress.
Clause 2 of section 6 of Article I of the Constitution says, "No person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." Why is this?
The privileges of members of Congress under clause I of section 6 of Article I of the Constitution. Reasons for these privileges.
"Log-rolling" in Congress, what it is and why so called.
The details of the budget system of the national government if one has been created by the time you study this chapter.
Any change in the rules of Congress relating to appropriations.
The desirability of introducing in our government a plan similar to that used by the House of Commons.
The judicial power of the United States government is vested by the Constitution "in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" (Art. III, sec. I). The number of judges in the Supreme Court is determined by Congress, and they are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. At present the Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices. Its sessions are held in the Capitol building at Washington. Congress has created circuit courts of appeals, of which there are now nine, each "circuit" including several states; and district courts, of which there is at least one in every state, and sometimes several. In addition to these there is a court of customs appeals and a court of claims, for special classes of cases. The courts of the District of Columbia are also United States courts, inasmuch as the District is governed entirely by the national government. The judges of all United States courts are appointed by the President and hold office for life.
The powers of the federal courts are stated in Article III, section 2, of the Constitution. In general, they have jurisdiction over cases of a national or interstate character. Most cases that come in the first instance before the federal courts are tried in the United States district courts, going to the higher courts only on appeal; but there are certain classes of cases that go to the Supreme Court at once (Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2). A case brought to trial before a state court may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States when the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties of the United States are involved, and its decision is final. The Supreme Court may declare a law passed by Congress or an act of the President null and void if, in its opinion, such law or act is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It has been questioned whether the framers of the Constitution intended the Supreme Court to have this power, but it exercises the power on the ground that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land to which even Congress and the President are subject, and that it is the sacred duty of the courts to preserve it from violation. We have noted the influence exercised by the Supreme Court in extending the activities of the United States government by its broad interpretations of the Constitution.
Study the powers of the federal courts in Article III, sections 1 and 2.
What is treason? (Art. III, sec. 3, cl. I.)
What is meant by the second clause in section 3 of Article III?
Guerrier, Edith, The Federal Executive Departments, Bulletin,1919, No. 74, U. S. Bureau of Education. Swanton, W. I., Guide toUnited States Government Publications; Bulletin, 1918, No. 2, U.S. Bureau of Education.
In Lessons in Community and National Life:
Series A: Lesson 12, History of the federal departments.Lesson 18, Local and national governments.
Series B: Lesson 13, The Department of the Interior.Lesson 14, The United States Public Health Service.Lesson 21, National standards and the Bureau of Standards.
In Foerster and Pierson's American Ideals: The nature of the Union (Daniel Webster), pp. 17-26. The nature of the Union (John C. Calhoun), pp. 27-44. Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, pp 59- 64. The frame of the national government (Bryce), pp. 285-300. Criticism of the federal system (Bryce), pp. 301-311. Merits of the federal system (Bryce), pp. 312-321.
Beard, C. A., American Government and Politics, Part ii, especially chaps, xi and xiv Hart, A. B., Actual Government, Part v, The National Government in Action. Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth, vol. I, Part i. Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government (Houghton Mifflin Co.). Haskin, F. J., The American Government (Lippincott). Young, The New American Government (Macmillan).