Chapter VI: Preface (5)

Under our Constitution this may be done only “in case of rebellion or invasion” when “public safety may require it”. For instance, in the World War, which you all remember, some dangerous person, some traitor, might have been arrested by the military authorities and detained in custody, and he could not be discharged upon a writ of habeas corpus, because a state of war existed, and public safety required that he be held. Of course in times of war persons engaged in the military service are not entitled to a trial in a civil court for their offense. They are tried for military offenses by court martial. That is a military court, where the judges are military officers, ordered by their superiors to sit and hear the evidence. There is not much formality. In grave offenses prompt action is necessary. Spies are caught, the courts organized, the evidence taken, a finding of guilty made, and the party shot, all perhaps within twenty-four hours. These are the necessary awful consequences of war. But can’t you see now what a sense of security this little provision of our Constitution ought to bring to each one of us? We always know that in case of our wrongful arrest, a writ of habeas corpus will bring us before some court where we may have prompt inquiry into the reasons for invading our right to liberty, and prompt order for discharge if the arrest is not justified.

This writ issues not only in behalf of persons confined in jails and prisons, but also in every case where one is held by force against his will by another person, because this is a free country, and no man, whether a private citizen or public officer, has any power to restrain another against his will, unless such restraint is under legal proceedings with all the safeguards of the Constitution.

I remember a case when unfortunately a father and mother were separated and divorced. Their little boy was left with his mother. The judge decided that the father was a bad man and that he was not worthy to have charge of his son.

A few months later that father went to the house where the mother and boy lived, watched behind the hedge until the little boy was at play in the yard, when he seized him, jumped in an automobile which was waiting for him in the woods, and drove away at great speed. He took the boy to a boarding school in a neighboring State, telling the principal of the school that he wanted the boy safely kept until he should return from Europe. After many days the sheriff with the aid of detectives found where the boy was. The mother came to the school. Of course she was filled with joy when she saw her son. She thought that she could take him away with her at once, but the principal would not consent. He said that he had no knowledge of whether or not she was the boy’s mother; that she had no right to take him away; and that his duty was to return the boy to the man who had left him in the school. The appeal of the mother and the tears of the boy were in vain.

At last she had to leave the boy. She at once consulted a lawyer. He prepared a written application asking that a writ of habeas corpus be issued, commanding the principal of the school to bring the boy before the judge, that the judge might hear the evidence, and make an order releasing the boy from the school and placing him in the charge of his mother. The writ was issued by the judge. An officer went to the school, read the writ to the principal, who promptly brought the boy to the court room.

There the judge heard the story of the mother and the simple tale of the little boy, he examined certified copies of the order of the court awarding the custody of the boy to his mother, which the sheriff had procured, and then he very promptly ordered the principal of the school to give the boy to his mother. The principal was of course glad to do so, when he found that the father had done wrong.

This is only one of hundreds of cases where the writ of habeas corpus releases someone from wrongful confinement. Such wrongful confinement may be in a school or in a home or in a jail or in a dungeon or in a dark cellar. No matter where, the writ of habeas corpus does not stop at locked doors or barred windows or stone walls. An officer with such a writ can break and enter if necessary. No obstacle can be allowed wrongfully to deprive an American citizen of his liberty.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. What is a writ of habeas corpus?

2. What does “habeas corpus” mean?

3. When was it recognized in England?

4. When may it be suspended in America?

5. Just what does it mean to the average citizen?

6. Can you think of a time when it might be valuable to you?

7. What is martial law?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Just when is a writ of habeas corpus likely to prove valuable?

B. Why is it called “the most famous writ of the law”?

C. Show how it affects the poor man.

D. Show how it makes for democracy.

E. Write a paper on the following:

Abuses Found Before the Writ of Habeas Corpus Was Recognized

Cases Where It was Used Locally

The Experience of the Arrest of an Innocent Man Who Was Unable to
Furnish Bail

A Court Martial

XX. OTHER PROHIBITED LAWS

No Bill Of Attainder Or Ex Post Facto Law May Be Passed By Congress

This morning I have something else for you which you probably do not understand, something that you can hardly imagine would interest you personally; but as I have often repeated, always bear in mind that every single clause of the Constitution is made for each and every one of us, no matter what position we may have in life.

The framers of the Constitution said:

“_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed._”(86)

What does “attainder” mean? It means the extinction of civil rights and capacities and powers, which under the law in the olden times took place whenever a person was convicted of treason, or of a crime for which the death sentence was imposed. It means that all the estate of the convicted person, all his land, money, or other property, was forfeited to the government; so that upon his death nothing passed by inheritance to his heirs. As it was expressed, his blood was “corrupted”. He could not sue in a court of justice. He was helpless to defend any right of himself or his family.

By “bills of attainder”, which were legislative acts imposing that penalty on the accused without giving him any hearing in a court, many persons were deprived of their rights and their possessions in the centuries which have gone by, in order that such rights and such possessions might go to some favorite of the government. Of course no one would have much sympathy for a person who might be actually guilty of treason, or guilty of a great crime which involved a death penalty; but in the olden days innocent men were often charged with treason and punished. Conspiracies were formed to get rid of certain individuals who might be an obstacle to the achievement of base ambitions.

The abuses arising out of the imposition of attainder became so grave that in the time of Queen Victoria a statute was passed in England abolishing the extreme penalties which followed it.

In some of the colonies in this country, before the Constitution was adopted, acts of attainder were passed and enforced; but when the Constitution was finally adopted, bills of attainder were forever barred.

Don’t you see the spirit of charity which is manifest in this, just as in the entire Constitution, charity even for wrongdoers, charity for the weaknesses of men? Wrongdoers of course must be punished, yet the Constitution wipes out harsh and brutal methods which were common in the days before America came into being.

No “ex post facto law” shall be passed. _What does that mean?_(87) If a person does an act, which at the time of the doing of the act is not a criminal offense, the Congress of the United States, with all its power, cannot make that act, innocent when done, a crime. Yet this used to be done in the old days. You can imagine how in those days a brutal government being desirous of getting rid of some objectionable person, but desiring to have its acts appear legal, might find that he had done some act which was not punishable under the law; but through a corrupt legislative body, it might so legislate as to make the act a criminal offense, and thus have the person tried and convicted.

A person might commit an offense for which there was a moderate punishment; and the legislature might, after the commission of the crime, but before he was tried, increase the penalty. For instance, if there were a penalty of two years imprisonment for stealing a horse, and some neighbor was guilty of stealing a horse, thus leaving himself, when convicted, subject to two years imprisonment, all the powers of the United States government, all the powers of Congress, all the wonderful power of the people of the country could not change the penalty, could not, for instance, amend the law so as to provide a five year penalty instead of two, so as to affect this neighbor who had stolen the horse before this time. He could, if convicted, be sentenced to two years, but no more.

You may think that those who adopted the Constitution must have been suspicious of Congress, or the people in thus carefully preventing wrongs against individuals accused of a crime—yes, individuals who had actually committed a crime; but you can readily understand why they were so careful. The conduct of the governments of the world had been such before that day that suspicion was justified. The Constitution was made for the individual—for men, women, and children—to guard their rights against the abuse of power; and in fact most of the wrongs of the world have had their origin in the abuse of power. The Constitution guards the humblest person against abuse of the power granted to the government, as well as against the wrongs of our neighbors.

The people in this country have great power—absolute power. This power may be expressed in laws enacted by Congress or by the legislatures of the States, except in those things which the people themselves in the Constitution of the United States, and in the Constitutions of the different States, have placed beyond even their own power.

Of course these provisions of the Constitution, as all provisions of the Constitution, may be changed by the people, but not by a mere majority of the people. These constitutional provisions relate to sacred rights, and they may not be changed except upon mature deliberation, and by a vote which represents the sentiment of at least a majority of the people of three-fourths of the States.

So I hope you can realize that when the framers of the Constitution prohibited bills of attainder, and prohibited the enactment of the ex post facto laws, they were doing something for the people of this country. They had the rights of the people in mind—the rights of the humble and perhaps unknown, as well as the rights of those in high places. I do not expect you to study the details of these provisions of the Constitution relating to bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. You will probably never have to enforce these rights which are given to you under the Constitution. I hope you will not; but the important thing which I always want you to bear in mind is, that these guaranties of the Constitution are in existence and that they confer upon you certain powers which may be asserted to protect your liberty if occasion should ever arise.

I am sure you realize that at the beginning of the life of the American Nation, extreme care was exercised by those who framed the Constitution, to guard the people at every point against injustice and wrong, whether exercised by private individuals or by public officials.

Understanding these things—feeling these things, will give you a new sense of power, of pride, and of duty, as citizens of this great Nation.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. What does attainder mean?

2. What was the effect of a bill of attainder on the family of a man who was convicted?

3. Why does the abolition of attainder show the charity of the founders of the Constitution?

4. What is an ex post facto law?

5. How would this kind of a law be unjust?

6. How could a strong, powerful, and dishonest man work injustice by means of such a law?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Show how attainder worked in England in the early days.

B. What were the abuses found under such a law?

C. Show how its abolition made for democracy.

D. Show how the abolition of ex post facto laws made for democracy.

E. Write a paper on the following:

The Injustice of Attainder

The Injustice of an Ex Post Facto Law

XXI. TITLES, GIFTS, TREASON

Prohibition Of Titles And Foreign Gifts—Treason, Its Trial And Punishment

America is a democracy. It was the plan from the beginning that it always should be a democracy. The human race had suffered much from royalty, from kings and emperors, and queens and princes. Human nature is weak. We are all more or less attracted by people with titles. Story books which we read in childhood exalt the “lords” and “ladies” and “princes”, and I regret to say that the history of lords and ladies and princes does not always justify the pictures which our story books would paint for us.

The men who framed the Constitution had just finished a life and death struggle with royalty—a struggle between the people and a king, and the people had won. They were determined that the blighting influence of royal power should never again find a place on American soil. Therefore they put into the Constitution:

“_No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State._”(88)

Never before in the history of the world was such a bold thing done. These words reflect the spirit of the Revolution. They mark the turning point in the history of human governments. They proclaim the final establishment of the government by the people—the first real government by the people that the world ever knew.

I wonder if those who criticise the government of America who complain that in this country the people have no chance, ever read these glowing words of our Constitution. It isn’t so much the words, but the spirit in which they were made a part of our Constitution, the spirit in which the young Nation proclaimed to the world eternal separation from kingly power.

I find all through the Constitution an expression of grim determination to fortify the Nation against any influence which would weaken the supreme power of the people, which would in any way interfere with the plan to make this a government by the people.

In many provisions of our Constitution we find expressions which show how humane America is.

_We hate treason._ In fact there is no crime so dark, so awful, as treason. But in the history of the world, treason has meant many things, and unfortunately treason has been made not only the instrument of those who sought the destruction of the governments, but it has sometimes been made the instrument of tyrants in suppressing the rights, and in crushing the hopes of the people. It all depends on what is meant by treason.

In the olden days we find men charged with treason when the offense was in fact very slight—perhaps a just resistance to the king, perhaps merely an assertion of natural human right against the king.

The government of the United States being intended to protect the liberties of the people, the Constitution put a bar against prosecution for treason, except where the accused was actually an enemy of his country, endeavoring to aid in the destruction of his country. We are here told what treason is:

“_Treason against the United States, shall consist only in __ levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court._

“_The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person Attainted_.”(89)

We see all through the Constitution a splendid spirit of justice, and a spirit of charity, even toward the guilty. By this article of the Constitution, not only is treason defined, but any conviction of a person for treason must be upon the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same act, or upon a confession in open court.

The innocent must not be punished; and the guilty, when convicted, shall alone bear the punishment. Treason being such a grave offense, Congress may, if it so desires, provide very severe penalties, but it cannot attaint the blood, so that the children or the grandchildren of the guilty person shall suffer as in the olden days; nor shall the right of forfeiture of property obtain, except during the life of the person guilty of treason.

No one objects to any penalty, however severe, where treason is proved, but it is contrary to the spirit of America to brand the innocent descendants of one who is guilty of a crime. Of course the children of the guilty will always bear a certain degree of reproach from their fellowmen, but it is not fair that they should be visited with penalties for an offense which they themselves never committed. It is the spirit of America that each person shall enjoy any position in life which he may win by merit and honest endeavor, and no obstacle should be placed in his way by the wrong of an unfortunate ancestor.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. America is a democracy. Why does this mean so much?

2. What does that phrase bring to mind?

3. Why did we abolish all titles of nobility?

4. What is treason?

5. Why is it limited so carefully?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What was the real purpose of abolishing all titles of nobility?

B. Why did the founders of the Constitution refuse to permit our representatives to accept gifts from abroad?

C. What acts are treason to-day?

D. Show how these provisions make for democracy?

E. Write a paper on the following:

An Illustration of an Act of Treason During the World War

How A Person May Obtain a Responsible Position in Life

Laws Which Retard Advancement in Life

XXII. JURY, EXCEPT IN IMPEACHMENT

Criminal Trials, Except Impeachment, To Be By Jury—Equal Rights—No
Religious Test For Office

There are still three articles of the Constitution containing personal guaranties but the substance of these articles has been considered in connection with other articles already discussed. They are the following:

“_The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury, and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed._”(90)

“_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._”(91)

“_No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States._”(92)

Here again we see emphasized the right of trial by jury. I want you to give some thought to this particular right, because it applies not only to cases where persons are accused of a crime, but also to nearly all cases involving property rights.

The ordinary lawsuit, where one person is suing another to recover money, property, or damages, is triable by a jury. You understand of course the purpose of a trial. As already explained the main thing in every trial is to determine the truth as to the points in dispute, and the truth in such cases under our Constitution is determined, not by judges, but by jurors, men from the ordinary walks of life, your neighbors, men accustomed to dealing with ordinary human affairs. This right is important in aiding a person to have the truth properly established; but it is especially important, as I have heretofore explained, because it emphasizes the fact that this is a government by the people, and that in grave emergencies when life, liberty, or property, is in danger, the representatives of the common people, selected from the ranks of the common people, shall be the judges.

Of course I have fully explained to you, and I do not wish to have any confusion upon that point, that the judges themselves are also representatives of the people, because they are elected by the people, or appointed by those agents of the people who are elected by the people.

I have intentionally repeated, sometimes over and over, rules and reasons, because we must have them in our minds so that they will never be forgotten.

Now as above explained, the citizens of each State are guaranteed the right to go to another State, and exercise in that other State the same rights as the citizens of that State. This is in the spirit of America which gives us all equal opportunity. A citizen of Massachusetts going to the State of Minnesota has the same rights in Minnesota as the citizens of Minnesota have. Minnesota could not discriminate against him because he was a citizen of another State. Of course he could not exercise rights which the citizens of Minnesota were not entitled to, but all rights of the citizens of Minnesota are guaranteed to him while he is in that State.

Now as to the provision which forever bars any religious test as the qualification for any office or place of public trust under the United States. We have already given serious consideration to the great fundamental human privilege which the Constitution guards, the right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience. We have already found that regardless of church or creed each person stands before the law equal in our country. The older you grow, the more fully you realize what religion means to a great many people in this world, the more fully you will appreciate the blessing which came to humanity in these provisions of the Constitution. There are some of us who do not belong to any church organization, and yet we are intensely interested, because there was a time when every person was compelled by law to belong to a church organization, to the state church, the state religion. I have already explained that we find solemn statutes enacted by the British Parliament, as an illustration, which provided for a death penalty for those who did not believe in the religion of the state.

There is no religious test which can be made a qualification for any office under the United States; nor for any office for any State in the Union. There should be no individual discrimination in voting for public officials because of the religion or church to which a candidate for office may belong. These are sacred, individual rights. Men must be judged by their conduct, by their character, by their ability, by their capacity to serve the people and their country, not by the religion which one may profess.

We must cultivate the spirit of charity toward our neighbors, charity which means love, which enables us to maintain a proper spirit of toleration for those who differ from us in matters of belief.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Does a citizen have the same rights in California that he does in New York?

2. Why is religious belief never made a qualification for office?

3. What is impeachment?

4. Are judges representatives of the people? Why?

5. Can the State of Nebraska enact a law imposing a tax upon merchandise shipped into Nebraska from any other State?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What is impeachment?

B. Describe the manner of trial before trial by jury. Compare the justice of the ordeal end wager of battle with the jury system.

C. Show how these provisions make for democracy.

D. Why is the spirit of charity necessary in a democracy?

E. Write a paper on the following:

The Ordeal

Wager of Battle

How Englishmen Won the Right to Trial by Jury

XXIII. WRONGS UNDER KING GEORGE

The Story Of The Colonists In The Declaration Of Independence

When we first read over the numerous guaranties of the Constitution protecting the American people in their rights, we sometimes wonder why certain provisions were inserted in the Constitution. Being born here in America, never having been compelled to submit to the abuse of arbitrary power, and always having lived under the Constitution, and always being guarded by its provisions against the abuse of power, we can hardly understand why it was necessary to make so many provisions against things which we can hardly imagine ever happened in human government.

Whenever you have a chance, read somethings of the governments of the world under kings or other absolute rulers. In fact, we cannot understand the blessings of our government until we know something of what our ancestors were compelled to submit to under the governments of the different countries of the world a few centuries ago.

While we have in mind the guaranties of our Constitution, it is well for us to have clearly in mind some of the definite things which the framers of the Constitution had before them, some of the wrongs which the human race had endured at the hands of government which the framers of the Constitution were determined the people of America would never have to endure. You can hardly imagine what little regard or consideration was given to human rights in those old days now almost forgotten. I am not going to undertake to discuss the problems of government in different countries the world.(93) The purpose which I have in mind can be fully served by a consideration of the government in this country under the king of Great Britain during the years preceding the Revolutionary War. You understand, of course, that even at that time a great advance had been made in recognizing certain rights of the people. In fact, I think it is generally recognized that England before the American Revolution had attained nearer to a fairly just government than any other country in the world up to that time. There had been many periods during its history when the people had asserted themselves and had forced the recognition of certain rights by the government—by the king, and yet it was still a government by a king. It was a government under a king to which the colonies owed allegiance. It was government under a king against which the colonies finally revolted. It was government under a king which brought. about the Revolution. It was resistance to government under a king which inspired the heroes who won the liberty of the new world. It was the brutality of a government under a king which inspired the framers of the Constitution so carefully to guard against the abuses which the world had known before liberty had been established on American soil. I will not undertake to recite for you the things which the people were compelled to endure under this government of a king. I will let the people of the colonies tell their story. You remember that in 1776, after the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the people of the Colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence which recites in detail the abuses and wrongs they had endured under a government by a king. It is one of the most dramatic recitals in history. Let these colonies tell their own story. I am not going to read the entire Declaration of Independence; I am simply going to read the recital therein of the wrongs which came to the people, the men, women, and children, the human beings, who up to that time were compelled to live here in America under the government of a king.

The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove
this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained, and, when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the
right of representation in the legislature—a right inestimable to
them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public
records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly for opposing,
with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of
annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their
exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all
dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for
that purpose obstructing the laws of naturalization of foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither and
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his
assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of
their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms
of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without
the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and
superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving
his assent to their acts of pretended legislation—

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any
murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes upon us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended
offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring
province; establishing therein an arbitrary government, and
enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example
and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into
these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws,
and altering fundamentally the forms of our government;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his
protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns,
and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy
scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally
unworthy the head of a civilised nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high
seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the
merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for
redress, in the most bumble terms; our repeated petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be
the ruler of a free people.

Now, if there be those who are not satisfied under the present government of America, let them reflect. Let them compare their rights to-day with the rights of the people subjected to the repeated “injuries and usurpations” so eloquently recited by those who founded this government, who adopted our Constitution which will forever bar any power from exercising “a design to reduce them (the people) to absolute despotism”.

Read through this catalog of wrongs endured by the people of the colonies. Then read through the guaranties of the Constitution. You will find that in large part the guaranties of the Constitution were inspired by the wrongs recited by the people when they proclaimed their independence.(94)

I said that this recital is dramatic. It is also pathetic. Listen: “_In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury._” Is it any wonder that the Constitution of the United States should provide that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

Is it any wonder that we find in the Constitution guaranties of freedom of worship, freedom of speech and of the press, the right of the people to bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, the right to a speedy jury trial when accused of crime, and the right to a trial in the district where the offense was committed instead of being sent beyond the seas? When we read of the wrongs endured by the people under the government by a king we can readily understand why the people put into their Constitution a guaranty that a person no matter how poor shall have an attorney to defend him, shall have his witnesses brought into court at government expense, that excessive bail shall not be required, and cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, that slavery is forever abolished on American soil, that the property of every person, rich or poor is sacred, and that even the government of the United States cannot take it for public use without just compensation, that every person shall have equal protection of the law, and if wrongfully imprisoned he can secure his release by writ of habeas corpus. You can readily see that all these guaranties of the Constitution and many others which we have been studying were intended to give protection to the people from wrongs which the people had suffered throughout the world under the different forms of government existing before America was born.

From the stirring story related by the people in the Declaration of Independence of the injustice which they had to suffer under a king, you can see how carefully future generations of people upon American soil were guarded by the Constitution against the wrongs which our forefathers had endured.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. When was the Declaration of Independence signed?

2. How long did the colonists of America continue under government by a king?

3. How did it happen to be drawn up?

4. Compare each sentence of this quotation (pages 167, 168) with the guaranties that you have discussed in class.

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Discuss in detail the reasons for the coming of the American colonists.

B. Discuss in detail the contrasts noted in Note 2. Review the previous study with reference to our Declaration of Independence.

C. Write a paper comparing the solution found in the Constitution with the grievances noted in the Declaration.

D. Discuss a method by which this might be brought to the attention of the Socialists, Anarchists, and Bolsheviki who are criticising our government to-day.

XXIV. SHALL ANY PART BE REPEALED

What Provisions Would You Have Taken Out Of The Constitution

We have discussed the main personal guaranties of the Constitution. There is a large part of the Constitution which we have not yet considered. Not because I do not regard it as important—it is all important—but because the personal guaranties are of the highest importance. They constitute a Bill of Rights, a bill of individual rights, of your rights and my rights. These rights are clearly defined and carefully guarded.

I heard a man say the other day that the Constitution ought to be abolished, that it was an obstacle to human progress.(95) He did not say why. That is the trouble with a lot of people in this world; they are ever ready to destroy, but are never ready to aid in building up. Their purpose is destruction, not construction. You will hear a great deal of complaint about the Constitution. I have heard complaint about the Constitution. This is our Constitution. We are directly interested in defending it against all attacks if it is a good thing for us. If it is a bad thing we are all interested in having it repealed. And of course you now fully understand that the people have the power to repeal every line of the Constitution if they want to.(96)

So this morning I wish to submit to you a fair question. _What is there in the Constitution that you think should be taken out of the Constitution? What is there that should be repealed?_ I do not ask you to answer that question now. I want you to think it over carefully. Go over each and every word of the Constitution carefully. Talk it over with your father and your mother. Talk it over with your friends, the boys and girls who are studying this subject with you, and some day present to your teacher or to me a statement of the part of the Constitution that you think ought to be repealed. Of course, to come to a just conclusion on this question you must not only look at the language of the Constitution but you must take into consideration the purpose of each provision of the Constitution. That is why we have been studying the Constitution in detail. That is why we have considered in a general way something of the problems of the human race under the past governments of the world. It is after all a simple question—what is good for the people, and what is not good for the people. What is good for _all_ the people—not for any special class. The Constitution has been in existence, most of it, for considerably more than a hundred years. During that more than one hundred years what a wonderful development there has been in this country, development not alone in property and in wealth, because after all that is not the main thing, but development in human opportunity! What a wonderful expansion there has been of human rights! What a splendid example we have had of the maintenance and protection of human liberty! What wonderful legislation has been enacted by the people during those years to make life easier for the average man!(97)

Consider all these things and then say frankly whether or not any provision of the Constitution should be taken out. In other words, would the repeal of any single personal guaranty, which we have been considering in these lessons, help men, women, and children? Would it make life easier? Would human liberty be better protected? Would the objects of government, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, be more effective?

The Constitution is a sacred document, but there is nothing more sacred than the right to life and liberty and happiness. Therefore do not hesitate to deal fearlessly with the Constitution, but deal with it reverently. It was intended as an aid to humanity. If it does not serve that purpose it should be abolished. If any provision of the Constitution is not an aid to humanity in America let us repeal that provision. Be fearless; be also cautious. Be careful in any change to avoid the ills which we have, that we do not invite other and more grievous ills that we know not of.

The American people owe to themselves, to their children, and to their country, the solemn duty to give earnest consideration to our Constitution. They owe the solemn duty, if the Constitution is serving a great purpose for the people of America, to defend it against all those who may attack. They owe the duty to uphold it and to guard it. It is a sacred trust and this trust cannot be executed except through intelligence, earnestness, patriotism, and loyalty.

Therefore, if there be defects in the Constitution, pick them out and let us unite in removing them, because the cause of humanity is greater than the cause of fidelity to any law or constitution ever enacted by the people.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Why are we interested in the Constitution?

2. Why should we defend it from all attacks?

3. In what way can we best defend the Constitution?

4. Why should we wish to modify it?

5. Just how can the Constitution be modified?

6. What should be the spirit in which we should enter upon the consideration of amendments to the Constitution?

7. Just what should be the argument for any changes?

8. Make a list of some of the modifications you think should be made.

9. Arrange a debate on each one of these.

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What is the fallacy of the I. W. W. constitution?

B. How would you meet their argument?

C. List the standards which should be used to measure the worth of any suggestion of amendments to the Constitution.

D. Discuss the process by which former amendments have been made.

E. Write a paper on any amendments which you think should be adopted to take anything out of the Constitution.

XXV. AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION

The Power Of The People—What Provisions Should Be Added To It

This morning we are going to apply another test to the Constitution of the United States. I have already asked you to analyze and study the Constitution carefully, each provision of the Constitution, to see if there be any portion that should be taken out. This morning I am going to ask you to study the Constitution with a view of determining what, if anything, you wish added to the Constitution. Do not assume that I em imposing a duty which should only be undertaken by some learned lawyer or statesman. This Constitution is a Constitution of the whole people and it must be upheld and defended, not only by lawyers, judges, and public officials, but by the people in every walk of life, by the children as well as by fathers and mothers, by the poor as well as the rich.(98) Therefore I come to you who are children to-day but who in a few short years will be making the laws of this country through your votes at the ballot box. I ask you to decide not only what, if anything, should be taken out of the Constitution, but I ask what, if anything, should be added to the Constitution; and again I want you to form your own opinions about this after a careful study, after conference with your parents and with your friends. It is a strange thing that we seldom hear any one talking to his neighbor about the Constitution. People when they get together talk about all sorts of things, serious and frivolous, but you seldom hear them discussing the gravest problem in human life, which is human government. Do not be afraid to take up the subject with your friends. Do not be afraid to discuss with your friends some provision of the Constitution. You are having a special advantage in being able to study the Constitution while many of your neighbors never had such an opportunity.(99)

What can we add to the Constitution which will make it more effective as an instrument in the protection of life, liberty, and property for us here in America?

Remember, we the American people can add anything to the Constitution that we wish. Nineteen amendments to the Constitution have already been adopted by the people. Do not feel discouraged because it takes a little time to secure the adoption of an amendment. The Constitution should not be amended hastily, but only after grave thought and earnest consideration.

If we can only think of something to add to the Constitution which would be a good thing for the whole people of America, I will guarantee that we will have no difficulty in having it added to the Constitution. Of course it will take earnest effort, but shaping the destiny of more than 105,000,000 people is a grave matter. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of each individual and therefore any change in the Constitution merits most earnest consideration upon the part of each one of us.

Think it over and advise me some day or inform your teacher of anything that you can think of which, if added to the Constitution, would improve this Nation as a country in which the people rule, anything which would make the rule of the people more complete. That is the big thing after all—the rule of the people, because when the people can rule themselves, they ought to get out of life everything which they are entitled to by their individual merits, ability, and effort. Always keep in mind that there is no way by which a government of the people and by the people can equalize opportunity for those who will not seek the advantages which are open to them. No Constitution and no law can equalize industry and idleness. No scheme of government can provide bread for those who will not toil. It is impossible that human happiness can be guaranteed to those whose lives are spent in wickedness and wrongdoing.

So, my friends, after due thought and deliberation, prepare your amendments to the Constitution of your country. Do not hesitate because you may think that you cannot put them in proper form. The form is not important; the idea is the great thing. Perhaps it may be that out of the mind and out of the heart of some pupil in this school may come some day a great idea which, incorporated into the Constitution or the law, may bring added blessings to the American people.(100) I know of no power on earth which can tie the hands of the American people in any effort toward enlarging the powers of the people, which will better guard life and liberty. We have seen how many safeguards were adopted by the framers of the Constitution to protect each and everyone of us against the abuse of power by the government maintained by the people. We have seen how earnestly the framers of the Constitution guarded each individual against wrongful conduct on the part of any servant of the people in any official position. _Perhaps some one in this class may discover an additional guaranty which would be helpful. If so, duty demands that the same shall be made part of the fundamental laws of our country, the Constitution of the United States._

As you read of America, as you think of its Constitution and laws, don’t you feel a sense of power, a sense of pride?

If Mr. Allen who owns the big department store on Main Street were to come here some morning and make each one of you a gift of an interest in his store, if he should make you partners with him in his entire business, you would feel grateful and proud. What an intense interest you would take in the store and all the details. You would talk about it at home and to your neighbors and friends. Each of you would begin to study the business. You would take pleasure in reading about merchandise, prices, and business methods.

Well, we are all partners in this great Nation. Liberty is more valuable than merchandise or profits. If someone stronger than you should undertake to take away your liberty, you would fight for it and die for it if necessary.

Being partners in America, won’t you study America? Won’t you talk about the blessings of America at home and to your neighbors? Won’t you study the problems of America so that each succeeding year it can pay greater profits in freedom and justice and righteousness?

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. What do your parents say about changes in our Constitution?

2. How would you advise them to act?

3. Can you tell them how changes in our Constitution can be made?

4. Why is it necessary that each one of us take a personal interest in OUR Constitution?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. How would you meet the argument of the radical who wants a revolution?

B. How would you show others that we have a great partnership in America?

C. What two ways are possible for constitutional amendments?

D. List a series of additions that you think should be made to the Constitution.

E. Write a paper upon some one amendment to our Constitution that you believe to be worthy of adoption.

XXVI. MACHINERY OF THE GOVERNMENT

The Agencies, Officers, And Methods For Exercising Powers Of The National
Government

Now my friends, we have reached the end of discussion of the personal guaranties of the Constitution—the American Bill of Rights.

As I have heretofore stated, this is the real, important part of the Constitution, because it is in a study of these guaranties that we fully realize the blessings of our free American government. Any one who has earnestly considered this great American Bill of Rights can readily answer the question, “What has America done for me and for my children”?

But I would not have you feel that the other parts of the Constitution are of small concern. Each provision of this great charter of human rights is very important, and worthy of careful study.

Article I of the Constitution provides that all legislative powers granted “shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”. Now you will understand of course that up to the time the Constitution was adopted, the United States had no power; in fact there was no United States. The colonists through the Articles of Confederation had attempted to establish a Nation which was designated “The United States of America”, but the result of their efforts was really a confederation, and not a real union.(101) _The Nation was formed by the adoption of the Constitution._ The Nation formed was in the nature of a partnership. I suppose you know but little about partnerships organized by individuals. A partnership is generally formed by a written agreement signed by the partners. This agreement usually contains provisions as to the share or interest of each partner, the power of the partners and of the partnership, and the objects and purposes of the partnership.

The United States is a partnership between the people and the Nation. The Constitution is a partnership agreement binding upon all the parties to the agreement. Before the adoption of the Constitution the people possessed all the power of government and governmental action. The people gave some of their power to the Nation, but only a small part of the power of the people was given. Always bear in mind that the United States—the Nation—has no power, and never had any except what the people granted in the Constitution and in the amendments thereto.