Editorials

The United States Constitution is a vital document that carefully outlines the governing responsibilities of the three branches of the federal government.

People are often reminded of the importance of reading the Constitution and understanding the provisions of government, and the limitations. An understanding of the document by the people is important in helping keep their government in line.

It should go without saying that every president, senator, member of Congress and every Supreme Court justice should be intimately familiar with the Constitution. After all, they all take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

But observing the way some of them behave, you have to wonder if they’ve even read it, said Edwin Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation.

“Clear and understandable” is the way Feulner describes the Constitution. It gives Congress, the legislative branch, the responsibility of passing laws. The president, head of the executive branch, is given the responsibility of enforcing those laws. Courts, headed by the Supreme Court, are given the responsibility of interpreting those laws.

“Yet in recent years, leaders of all three branches have expressed confusing — and incorrect — ideas about the Constitution,” Feulner said.

In Congress, some members recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging it to strike down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, and the Court agreed. But Feulner noted that Congress had the power to defend D.C. residents’ gun rights all along.

At any time, Congress could have passed a law removing the unconstitutional restrictions in the District, he said. But it didn’t. With the D.C. city council now considering new legislation to restrict gun rights, Congress continues to be silent, again leaving the question to the courts even though “members have a duty to protect the Constitution, and the rights of D.C. residents as well.”

The judicial branch isn’t blameless when it comes to failing to protect the Constitution, he added.

“Courts frequently overstep their bounds, creating law rather than merely interpreting it,” Feulner explained. “There are many examples, but one case proves the point. During its 2004 term, the Supreme Court ruled detainees at Guantanamo Bay — enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields — had the statutory right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts. It was a new right for enemy combatants.

Congress responded by passing the Detainee Treatment Act saying, in part, “no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider” applications on behalf of Guantanamo detainees. Lawmakers wanted to make sure detainees would not be able to tie up federal courts with endless habeas lawsuits.

In 2006, the Court decided another detainee case, finding the president needed express authorization from Congress to establish military commissions. So Congress passed the Military Commissions Act making it even clearer the Courts are not authorized to hear habeas claims from Guantanamo.

Now the Supreme Court has gotten into the picture. It recently decided by as 5-4 vote the procedures Congress established were inadequate and the MCA was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. Feulner said the court is setting policy that should be, and in fact had been, set by Congress.

The executive branch also has faltered on adhering to its oath to uphold the Constitution.

An example came in 2002 when President Bush signed the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill while noting his reservations “about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.”

The president said he expected the courts to resolve “these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.”

That is the wrong approach, Feulner said. “If a president thinks a bill is unconstitutional, he is duty bound to veto it, not kick it down the road for the courts to rule on.”

The courts wound up allowing the questionable provisions to stand and now “they’ll be harder than ever to fix,” he said.

People need to read and re-read the Constitution so they will know when any of the three branches of their federal government get off track. It is a clear and understandable document and doesn’t require a lot of reading time.

Members of all three federal government branches also could use a serious review of the Constitution, especially in regard to how it outlines their respective roles.

The U.S. Constitution is widely recognized throughout the world as a near perfect guide for an ideal government.

Americans have the best Constitution, and their knowledge and understanding of it is the best way to discourage people in three branches of federal government from taking actions that abandon or ignore its provisions.

()