What the Constitution Expects from Congress, Members, and the People


The most important trait for an effective an effective member of Congress is that he honors and truly abides faithfully to the Oath of office contained in Article VI, Section 3 in the Constitution. This means a Congressman would not support passage of a proposed bill that would be unconstitutional. If the bill is Constitutional it is more likely to be good for the nation, than a bill that is unconstitutional. A good rule-of-thumb would be to adhere to the aphorism, “God, family and country” as a good pattern for living a good life, and equally for guiding legislation.

What does the Constitution expect from the people who live in the United States of America? This will probably shock many people, but reading the debates among the founders who wrote the Constitution would say the Constitution provides freedom so each person can and will take care of himself and not look to the government as the source of all solutions. Note too, the Constitution provides little support for spending money on welfare. In 1789, delegates were asked to make their own list of powers that were specifically omitted. Remember, the powers granted to the federal government are specific and limited in scope and number. If a power is not granted, it means it is unconstitutional to make a law of it.

What does the Constitution expect from us, the people? I recently came across a web site established do not want to happen. Foremost, if the people to be elected, run the elections, it will create the same result as big city elections, where politicians in charge always win their election. How long has Chicago been run by Democrats? Same for New York, Los Angeles and on and on. The “For the People” bill shifts to Congress the sole power to run all elections. Below is what the Constitution provides:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
I understand the debate surrounding Article I, Section 4, and Clause 1. Madison was fearful that a state, by not holding timely, or any, elections at all could bring down the government, so the alternative Madison used was Congress being alternative, if needed. That provoked the anti-federalists’ fears of an already too powerful federal government. That was one of the lesser reasons that the original Constitution had each states’ legislature – House of Representatives and Senate combined – elect the two Senators for each State. Congress has never exercised the Article I altering of the manner of elections. What has happened is that State Legislatures have changed their election of Senators as they deemed appropriate and sometimes the State would have only a single Senator for a time, but no worse than a death or incapacity of a Senator. The Progressives made a big fuss about it, leading to the 1913 XVIIth Amendment. It has provided nothing useful and destroyed one of the vital separate pillars of government.****

If the “For the People Act” becomes the law, and a State’s election laws are changed by Congress there is bound to be an explosion of politics for the following reasons:
• Without changing The Constitution it is likely Congress will, at the first available moment by Law alter such regulations [of the manner of holding elections.], and it will thereafter always be under control of Congress because they will make it permanent.  
• The present holders of the power to set [the manner of holding elections] in each state [the legislature of the respective state], are closest to the very people who are being governed will be separated from each other.
• What happens when Congress and the applicable State each claim jurisdiction, what if that happens during an actual election. The Constitution, unamended still will beckon the States to reassert themselves.  
• It appears from the wording, “…Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”…. Is a grant of plenary power, and overrides …but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations.
• Congress has the right to make a law which ranks higher than the legislatures’ Regulations.
• The Legislature has a command to prescribe and Congress may [or may not] alter or make…It is closer to the intent of the Founders that those commanded respond, and Congress generously steps aside.**
• This is an unnecessary mess! It occurs because it is politics – faction!  Let’s hope this never comes into being, and especially in a State that decides an election result.

Publiustoo.com                                                                                                                                          May 25, 2022