Archive for the ‘Benjamin Franklin’ Category

Real World Graduation: Question 29

RealWorldGraduation_Question_29   <– PDF

Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution requires the President to take the following oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

An integral part of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution is preserving the rights of the people. The rights of individuals specifically called out in the Constitution and its first ten amendments are:

1) Habeas corpus (right to challenge detainment)

2) Freedom of speech

3) Freedom of the press

4) Freedom of religion

5) Freedom to keep and bear arms

6) Freedom from bearing the expense of quartering soldiers

7) Freedom from arbitrary search and seizure (searches require warrants signed by a judge, with testimony under oath by the officials seeking the warrant)

8) Federal indictment only by grand jury

9) No double jeopardy (a person can only be tried once for the same crime)

10) Immunity from self-incrimination

11) Due process of law

12) Compensation for property allocated for public use

13) Speedy and public trial

14) Cross-examination of witnesses in criminal trials

15) Counsel for defense in criminal trials

16) Trial by jury

17) Facts found by a jury not reviewable by a court

18) Prohibition of excessive bail

19) Prohibition of excessive fines

20) Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

Also, rights not specifically mentioned are reserved to the people (individuals) or to the states. Based on your understanding of American history, which three would you rate as the worst Presidents with regard to preserving the rights of the people?  The letter after their name indicates their part affiliation (F refers to Federalist, R indicates Republican, N indicates None, D indicates Democrat, D-R indicates Democrat-Republican, which later became the Democratic Party in the 1820’s).

a) Alexander Hamilton (F), Aaron Burr (F), and Benjamin Franklin (F)

b) Richard M. Nixon (R), Gerald R. Ford (R), and George Washington (N)

c) George H. W. Bush (41) (R), James E. Carter (D), and Thomas Jefferson (D-R)

d) Walter Mondale (D), Barry Goldwater (R), and Alf Landon (R)

e) Three among those listed in groups b) and c)

(The answer is on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Benjamin Franklin, Bill of Rights, critical thinking, fifth amendment, First Amendment, fourth amendment, government powers, habeas corpus, Real World Graduation, Second Amendment, sixth amendment, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Why the House Originates Revenue Bills

Why_the_House_Originates_Revenue_Bills <== PDF version

Article 1, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution states:

“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

It is instructive to recount the debate in the Constitutional Convention during which this provision was decided.  In early July of 1787, the delegates to the Convention were debating many aspects of how the proposed new government would function.  On 5 Jul 1787, a committee led by Mr. Gerry reported out its recommendations, one of which stated in part, “that all bills for raising or appropriating money … shall originate in the first branch of the legislature.”  The debate on this provision occurred the next day.  It turned out that the sentiments expressed by George Mason and Benjamin Franklin convinced the delegates to adopt this provision.  Here are the excerpts from James Madison’s notes regarding the arguments made by Mason and Franklin [1].  Keep in mind that the “first branch” referred to is the House of Representatives, the members of which are directly elected by the people, and the “second branch” is the Senate, the members of which were originally chosen by the state legislatures.  Hence the House represented the people; the Senate represented the states.

“Mr. Mason.  The consideration which weighed with the committee was, that the first branch would be the immediate representatives of the people; the second would not.  Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it.  We might soon have an aristocracy.  He had been much concerned at the principles which had been advanced by some gentlemen, but had the satisfaction to find they did not generally prevail.  He was a friend to proportional representation in both branches; but supposed that some points must be yielded for the sake of accommodation.

Dr. Franklin did not mean to go into a justification of the report; but as it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the second branch from meddling with money bills, he could not but remark, that it was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it had been disposed of.  It was a maxim, that those who feel can best judge.  This end would, he thought, be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.  This was his inducement to concur in the report.  As to the danger or difficulty that might arise from a negative in the second branch, where the people would not be proportionally represented, it might easily be got over by declaring that there should be no negative; or, if that will not do, by declaring that there shall be no such branch at all.”

The delegates believed that the subject of revenue and taxation should be decided by those in the government who most directly represent the people, as they can be held to account more readily than those representing the states.  (However, the members of the Senate are now also elected by the people per the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913.)  James Madison amplified this concept later in the Federalist #58:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government.  They, in a word, hold the power of the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representative of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government.”

It would be novel indeed, if the modern House would refuse to fund something, especially since the national debt is so large.  It would be novel if the House only raised revenue that was necessary for the support of the government; taxes, deficits, and the total debt would likely be much smaller.  But such a great portion of the money raised now goes to spending that is not related to the function of the government per se.  The budgetary power does in fact cause Congress to dominate the government, which is as it should be.  Unfortunately, the revenue policies have in modern times caused the government to exert undue influence over industry and the people alike.

[1]  Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787; With a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation; as reported by James Madison, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1881, Vol. 5, pp. 282-284


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, James Madison, U. S. Constitution, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Benjamin Franklin Asks For Prayer

Benjamin Franklin Asks For Prayer   <== PDF version

Benjamin Franklin is widely regarded as an atheist, or at most a deist, when the topic of the religion embraced by the founding fathers comes up.  Only God knows the true beliefs of any person.  Deism, for those not familiar with it, is the concept that God exists and created the universe, but takes no interest in the affairs of mankind; that God is completely impersonal and uninterested in the fate of His creation.

I will relate a short debate in the Continental Congress in which Franklin discusses his beliefs, not because I have any interest in advancing any theory about Franklin, but because it runs so contrary to what is commonly taught about him.  The members of the Convention had spent many days arguing about how the states would be represented in Congress; in fine, how the small states could guard themselves against the expected predations of the larger states, and how all the states could guard themselves against the national government.  They were not making much headway.  By late Jun 1787, they had agreed to two branches of a national legislature, but could not come to terms with how they should be constituted or how representation therein was to be allocated.  On 28 Jun 1787, Dr. Franklin gave a short speech in Convention that sparked a debate on the usefulness of daily prayer.  No such thing can be tolerated today in our public offices.  But here is the incorrigible Benjamin Franklin [1].

            “Dr. Franklin.  Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks’ close attendance and continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes — is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding.  We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it.  We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist.  And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

            In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have no hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.  Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.  All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.  To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten the powerful Friend?  Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?  I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable than an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”  I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel.  We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word to future ages.  And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to war, conquest, and chance.

            I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or two or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

There followed a short debate, in which the proposition was not brought to a vote, and as far as I know, never adopted.  Now, (only God knows) maybe old Ben was as cynical as they come, hoping the religious types would be pacified by prayers every morning that would serve to soften them up and make them more willing to give up their rights to the sensible atheists.  Maybe (only God knows), he was a true Christian, that is, personal belief in the saving work of Jesus Christ, the God-man.  Maybe he was somewhere in between.  But let’s admit, given what we have been told these many years about Franklin’s alleged dim view of Christianity, he made a speech that would get him kicked out of most schools, legislatures, and courthouses today.

[1]   Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787; With a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation; As Reported by James Madison, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1881, Vol. 5, pp. 253, 254.

Posted in Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention | No Comments »