[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H268-H275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CONSTITUTIONAL CAUCUS ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity

[[Page H269]]

to come back from our break, come here to these hallowed halls to speak 
on an important subject, and before the gentleman from the other side 
of the aisle leaves, and I know he is involved in a discussion right 
now, but before I repeat my remarks, I will reference his closing 
remarks, which was an outreach for bipartisanship to address the 
economic situations that the country finds itself in. The gentleman can 
rest assured that, at least from this gentleman from this side of the 
aisle, he can find that bipartisanship, because I think when we all go 
back home to our districts, regardless of the States that we are in, we 
are hearing the same complaint, outcry, what have you. It may be 
different in different portions of the country. Certain States are 
certainly harder hit than others. But I think there is a general 
perception out there that no matter where you are, the economy is in, 
let's say something of the doldrums.
  So this side of the aisle is glad to reach out to the other side of 
the aisle. I also know that the White House is more than willing to 
work to address the economic situation that we find ourselves in. That 
being said, I think that the American public wants to be sure, wants to 
be sure that whatever solution that we come up with out of this House, 
the House and the Senate, and the President eventually signs onto, will 
do something that will create more good than harm, and that will be 
long lasting and not just short-lived or a flash in the pan.
  A flash-in-the-pan might be something like we have seen in my very 
own State. I come from the great State of New Jersey. We do something 
in our State which is called homestead rebates. Every year around 
election time, whichever party is in power at that time sends out a 
homestead rebate check of around $300, $400 or $500. I guess that is 
supposed to be good for the economy and that sort of thing, but at the 
end of the day of course that has just de minimis effect on the overall 
economy, and if you look at the State of New Jersey economy right now, 
you will know it is not doing well at all. That, coupled with the fact 
that the State legislature has raised taxes on the people, but 
corporate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and the like, we have seen 
72,000 flee our State.

                              {time}  1815

  So we know that we do not want a flash-in-the-pan approach, but 
instead something that will improve the economy in a better way. That 
would most likely be something that would allow a permanent return of 
people's money to their pocketbooks, such as lowering the tax rates, 
allowing the creation of more jobs and the like. But I digress, because 
I was just referring to the closing comments to the gentleman on the 
other side the aisle.
  Now I would like to turn the attention to what we are here for the 
next hour to speak about, and that is during the Constitution Hour. As 
I do that, let me just take an introductory moment to thank the 
gentleman from Utah who will be speaking shortly. I thank him not only 
for his usual diligent work as he works earnestly in his capacity as a 
Member representing his great State as a Member of Congress and all the 
responsibilities that that takes, I thank him not only for his work 
that he does in addition to that to try to come up with methodologies 
to improve the performance of this House, which we are all eager to 
look forward to and take part and see the work there as well, but in 
addition to all those responsibilities, he has also taken on the chore 
and responsibility, and I don't think he looks at it as a chore, to 
come to the floor once a month as part of the Congressional 
Constitutional Caucus to address the important philosophical and 
fundamental issues of the day.
  So before I begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Bishop, for all of his work to his constituents and also to the members 
of this conference as well.
  As I say, we are here tonight as we begin another year of our monthly 
Constitutional Hour. During this second session of the 110th Congress, 
the members of this caucus will use this opportunity to emphasize for 
our colleagues and also for the Nation the necessity of ensuring that 
our government is operating according to the intent of our Founding 
Fathers and the original intent in the Constitution.
  As the tenth amendment affirms, as I often speak of on this floor, 
the authority over most domestic issues belongs to the States, either 
directly or through their political subdivisions and the people 
themselves, and not here for this House to be haranguing about.
  As the one who helped begin this caucus, I have discovered that for 
many Americans, including unfortunately some of my fellow colleagues, I 
guess, the Constitution is nothing more than a historical document, not 
germane to the current hour. Too many citizens do not know what the 
Constitution says about the governance of this Nation, let alone how to 
help discern its meaning and therefore apply it to what we do in this 
conference.
  Therefore, one of the goals of this caucus is to help educate both 
the Members of this Congress and also the public as well about the 
original intent of the Founding Fathers and how some portions of that 
document got here, and tonight we will be talking about the Bill of 
Rights.
  Last month, on that point, we celebrated the 216th anniversary of the 
ratification of that Bill of Rights. It was on December 15, 1791, our 
Founding Fathers decided to attach the first 10 amendments to the 
Constitution. After months of deliberation, they succeeded, I believe, 
in securing liberties and freedoms that were unimaginable, truly 
unimaginable, to previous civilizations.
  Just as an aside, some scholars would perhaps disagree and say that 
this was seen in other documents such as the Magna Carta and the like, 
but nothing to the poignancy and the directness as we have in the Bill 
of Rights was ever seen prior to this documentation.
  Tonight I join, as I say, with Mr. Bishop and others in focusing on 
the ratification of this Bill of Rights, and I would like then to begin 
a discussion of how this document continues then to affect us today.
  According to Thomas Jefferson, the Bill of Rights was largely the 
brainchild of one man, George Mason. In fact, Jefferson wrote, ``The 
fact is unquestionable that the Bill of Rights in the constitution of 
Virginia,'' which is where he was from, ``were drawn originally by 
George Mason, one of our greatest men.'' Yet, unfortunately, not many 
people today have even heard of him. It is for this reason that many 
have called him the forgotten founder.
  But most Americans recognize the name from the movie and Cinderella 
story of 2006, the NCAA tournament, in which the George Mason 
University Patriots made its way to the final four. But it was George 
Mason's tremendous contributions and accomplishments himself that have 
largely gone unrecognized.
  Mr. Mason established himself as one of the richest planters in 
colonial Virginia, and, like George Washington, who everyone is 
familiar with, he preferred to remain at home working on his plantation 
and spending time with his family. But when duty called, he did not 
ignore it nor hide from it, and throughout his adulthood, consented to 
the request of his fellow Virginians and served in various political 
capacities. He was a Fairfax County justice, a trustee of the City of 
Alexandria, and a representative in the Virginia House of Burgesses.
  It was when England enacted the Stamp Act that he wrote a letter to 
London merchants, who he had often many dealings with, explaining the 
colonists' position and asking for their support leading to the 
revolution.
  One of his greatest accomplishments was his contribution to the 
Virginia Declaration of Rights. When he became a delegate to the 
Constitutional Convention, he was one of the five frequent speakers 
there.
  Despite all that, he ultimately refused to sign the final version of 
the Constitution, for two reasons: One, and most importantly to our 
discussion tonight, he wanted to have a Bill of Rights in that original 
document to protect individuals against a grasping, overgrowing central 
government, one which we see today. Secondly, he disagreed with the 
convention's tacit approval of the institution of slavery.
  So, because of his stands, he refused to sign the document and he 
also lost a longtime friendship with George Washington and others. But 
it was one year before his death Mason was vindicated. That was when 
the Bill of Rights was

[[Page H270]]

finally adopted by all the States. Moreover, much of the adopted 
language was actually the identical words that he used and crafted in 
the original Virginia Declaration of Rights.
  Author George Grant describes Mason as a rationalist who had little 
faith in the workings of government bodies. He fought passionately for 
the freedoms of the individual, whether it was a citizen or slave at 
the time, and he was largely responsible for ensuring that the 
protection of the rights of the individual would be such an essential 
part of the American system. That is our responsibility as Members of 
Congress, to ensure that those rights are continuously protected in the 
legislation that we deal with on this floor.
  To show you how much we are indebted to Mason, let me quote a portion 
of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which I just said he authored. 
``All men are born equally free and independent and have certain 
inherent natural rights, among which are the enjoyment of life and 
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and 
pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.''
  Those were his words. They sound very familiar to us all. Mason was 
also among the first to call for such basic American liberties as 
freedom of press, religious tolerance and the right to trial by jury. 
As he understood it, the Bill of Rights would protect citizens, as I 
say, from encroaching Federal Government, and so his original language 
then eventually made its way into our current U.S. Constitution and the 
Bill of Rights.
  As my colleague will detail, I presume, or talk about, and I will a 
little bit later on, the Bill of Rights has been in certain cases 
misinterpreted in certain court cases in the past over the last 
centuries. In certain instances these errors have allowed the 
government to seize some of the very freedoms that the Bill of Rights 
was intended to protect.
  I will go into those in a little bit dealing with the first amendment 
and the establishment of religion, an issue that is very poignant 
today, and also in the first amendment, issues of the court's 
interpretation of abuse of freedom of speech and the press and how they 
have changed in the interpretations of recent Supreme Court decisions 
as to which is more important and paramount, commercial and independent 
speech.
  The second amendment, I believe we may have some speakers later on 
again on very poignant cases that will be coming dealing here with 
issues right here in the District of Columbia.
  The fifth amendment, taking clauses again, legislation that this 
House has dealt with and we will be talking about very briefly later on 
as well.
  Right to speedy trial and how what we do here with regard to the 
criminalization of laws can have an impact on that as well.
  In closing my remarks right now, the tenth amendment, I believe Ms. 
Foxx will be on the floor a little bit later on talking about that and 
how that closes up and compresses or closes the end tail, if you will, 
of the entire Bill of Rights.
  So those are some of the elements of it, our discussion tonight. With 
that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah. Again, I 
appreciate your being with us.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here and I am 
grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to have some 
time here.
  You know, when we come into this Chamber and we look around, there 
are cameos of the great lawgivers of the world all around us. There is 
Moses to Hammurabi, even Napoleon over there in the corner. It is 
interesting, there are only two Americans in this pantheon of great 
lawgivers, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, ironically neither of 
whom signed the Constitution.
  Of those two, Mason is, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, 
clearly the most interesting. He is one of three people who was at the 
entire Constitutional Convention, and then at the end refused to give 
his assent to the actual document because it did not contain a Bill of 
Rights.
  I would like to talk for just a second about the other members of 
that convention who did not agree to add this Bill of Rights, because 
one must ask why were great patriots like Washington, Franklin, 
Madison, Hamilton, Dickinson, Wilson, why did they refuse to join with 
a Bill of Rights? Were they opposed to civil liberties? It is pretty 
obvious they were not.
  But what they said is a fear that the Bill of Rights, that actually 
if you start listing what those rights are, it may be a ceiling of what 
rights are allowed as opposed to a floor of what rights are going to be 
guaranteed. Actually, the Bill of Rights is misnamed. It should be 
called the ``Bill of Wrongs.'' It is a list of things that it is wrong 
for the Federal Government to do, no matter how many people actually 
want to do it.
  In their concern though, they were still concerned about civil 
liberties. They had an additional plan to do that, which was a 
structural guarantee of the rights of citizens. We call it today 
federalism. It was a means to defend the individual liberties of 
Americans.
  They realized that increasing the number of competitors to power was 
as effective as listing the things that would be prohibited for the 
government to do. As Madison said, ambition would counteract ambition.
  They had two ways of looking at it. The horizontal separation of 
powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, which, 
unfortunately, is what we only spend our time teaching in schools 
today. But equally important to them was a vertical separation of 
powers between a national government and a State government.
  The fear, obviously, was that the Federal Government would not check 
itself, so the 50 States would be the perfect counterbalance to a 
national government.
  Justice Scalia in Mack v. The United States once said the 
Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power 
among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so we may 
resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an 
expedient solution to the crisis of the day.
  Power with no check historically resulted in tyranny, and no 
government was out of the potential of doing that; however, balance of 
power and limitations of governments would result in the support of 
individual civil liberties.
  In Federalist 51, Madison said, ``Experience has taught mankind the 
necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' That was the structure he was 
talking about, separation of powers, federalism.
  In Federalist 45, Madison again wrote, ``The powers delegated by the 
proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in 
the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' That was the plan.
  In Federalist 32, Hamilton continued to say that ``under the plan of 
the convention, States retained the authority in the most absolute and 
unqualified sense, and that attempt on the part of the national 
government to abridge any State power would be a violent assumption of 
power unwarranted by any article or clause of the Constitution.''
  Unfortunately, today our national government has grown out of the 
bounds originally established. Often by good intent, often by misguided 
compassion for people, which eventually actually ends up hurting far 
more than it ever intended to help. As P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, the 
history of government is not how Washington works, but how to make it 
stop.
  We understood in the Bill of Rights, when they were listed, a couple 
of unique concepts. The Bill of Rights always talked about how Congress 
may make no law to inhibit the rights of an individual. Other countries 
had bills of rights. The USSR Constitution did also have a bill of 
rights which contained guarantees of free speech. But, as they said, in 
order to produce a socialist state, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed 
freedom of speech, et cetera.

                              {time}  1830

  Now, there is a difference. In the USSR constitution, the freedom of 
speech was granted by the government and therefore could be taken back 
by the government, as opposed to the way we are looking at it as rights 
inherent in individuals.
  Now, when the Bill of Rights was actually established, there were 10 
Bills of Rights. I want you to know that when they did that, they did 
not forget this concept of a structural balance of power, both 
horizontally and vertically, as the foundation for ensuring the civil 
liberties. And that is why

[[Page H271]]

they did the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment clearly says that the 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor 
prohibited by its States are reserved to the States respectively or to 
the people.
  Jefferson called this 10th amendment the bedrock of constitutional 
government. These are the words that are significant and important, and 
we must remind ourselves.
  Congress passes laws almost on a weekly basis. Sometimes we make 
incorrect assumptions about the meaning the Founding Fathers had on the 
words, or we simply ignore those words as looking as if they were 
irrelevant to our time. Justice Scalia once again wrote about the 
Constitution, ``What it meant when it was adopted, it means today. And 
its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no 
longer adequate to our times.''
  That also applies to the words in the Bill of Rights: What it meant 
at its time of adoption, it still means today, and it doesn't change in 
the period of time and simply because our assumptions may wish to 
change.
  I was once in a conversation with another history teacher. She asked, 
how do we know what they originally thought when they were writing 
these words? And it was very simple: We study history.
  It may be that I am an old history teacher and I am kind of biased 
about this; but when we fail to study the history of this country and, 
more importantly, when we fail to study the history of our government, 
the history of this document, we fail to understand what they meant by 
those words, and then we replace our own definition. We use our own wit 
to try and come up with what it should be and oftentimes we fail in 
understanding what made this country great or what we need to do to 
truly honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are there.
  One of the things we need to do most definitely in this country is 
take the time and effort to ensure that we read the documents, that we 
understand the documents, and we put them in their historical 
connotation. That is the way we preserve and secure them.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas who has a unique 
approach here, one of the things we may do to try to remind us, even 
those of us who were elected to this body, that maybe it is time to 
review and know the history of this document and these documents so we 
understand what the words mean and how the words should be applied in 
our time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleagues from Utah and New Jersey for once 
again highlighting these important documents and important truths that 
this country was founded upon, and how important they really are. And 
you are both doing a great job of walking through some of the details.
  But at a bit higher plane is the idea that each of us should know 
what the Constitution says. It is one thing to study the history of the 
Constitution and try to figure out what they were thinking, but we 
clearly know what they thought in the sense that they wrote it down. In 
the language of the day, this Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and 
Declaration of Independence were written in plain English, and each of 
us as intelligent human beings should be able to read that document and 
understand what it has to say. And I think our Founding Fathers 
intended for us to do that. They wrote it down not for some archaic 
court to continue to interpret on our behalf, but for us to live our 
lives and run this government and create the kind of Federal Government 
that is limited, that doesn't have the reach into our personal lives 
that governments always want to do, that even this government under 
leadership from both sides of the aisle continues to reach into our own 
private lives in ways that our Founding Fathers I don't think intended.
  Hamilton was probably the one founding father who had the most 
expansive view of Federal Government of any of the Founding Fathers. 
And I think, if he came back to life today and got a good look at what 
we are doing, he would simply say, ``Oh, my, how could you possibly do 
this reach of government based on the documents that we left you 
guys?''
  My bill, H.R. 3550, is pretty simple, pretty straightforward. It is 
the idea that every Senator, every Member of the House, every senior 
staffer would once a year be required to simply read the Constitution. 
It is not a long read, it is about 2,500 words, and most of us have 
third grade educations or better and should be able to comprehend the 
simple, straightforward language of the Constitution.
  I am told anecdotally that even in our law schools where they teach a 
one-semester or two-semester course on the Constitution and 
constitutional law, that a requirement to read it from cover to cover, 
from start to finish, is generally not included in the curriculum. Now, 
they will read parts of it and they will read pieces of it and study 
pieces of it, but just simply sitting down and reading it from start to 
finish is not something that they do.
  At a minimum, there should be 435 Members of this body and 100 
Members across the building who once a year take a look at the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, just to make sure that as we go 
about our business day in and day out that we are not straying from the 
original precepts that are clearly there. This body and the one across 
the other side of the building write laws every day to implement this 
government, to run this government under that Constitution. From time 
to time, many of us propose amendments to the Constitution; those work 
their way through the process. It would seem to me pretty 
straightforward logic that, if we are working in that manner, we ought 
to know what is in the Constitution. And, without reading it, with 
purposely ignoring it, then you run down the path, as my colleague from 
Utah said a few moments ago, and that is we simply with our own wit, 
our own wisdom, and our own wishes decide what it says as opposed to 
actually looking at the document and interpreting it.
  Another benefit it would give us if we would do that is, from time to 
time, the Constitution is interpreted by our Supreme Court. One recent 
ruling that has many of us scratching our head is the definition of the 
word public good, public purpose, in which the Supreme Court has 
announced that those words can be defined to say that any government 
can take property, personal, private property away from one taxpayer 
and give it to another taxpayer if the subsequent receiving taxpayer 
can create more value for the taxing entity. That does not seem to 
square with a simple straightforward reading of the Constitution. And 
it would encourage all of us, as we look at the work that the Supreme 
Court does, to understand those clear documents.
  So this bill, it would be great, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, if we 
could get additional cosponsors. In September of each year, we 
celebrate Constitution Week, and I think it would be terrific if this 
coming September that one of the things that we brag on about the 
Constitution is that we will endeavor to once a year read that document 
and to understand it and to try to use it as we move forward in our 
business of fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities as the 
legislators under the legislative branch.
  I appreciate both my colleagues allowing me to come down here and 
briefly pitch my bill. It is a bit self-serving. It seems awfully 
simplistic. I have gotten some rather interesting responses from folks 
I have talked to about it, ones that you would not expect. And it is a 
bit disappointing to have people laugh at the idea that we would 
actually read that document once a year and make a note in the front of 
our pocket copy that we have read it, that somehow that is beneath us, 
it is beneath the dignity of this body that we should in fact read that 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights once a year.
  So, hopefully we will be able to work on the other 432 Members of 
this body to get them to agree that this is something that we would do 
once a year in an attempt to do our jobs better.
  Again, I appreciate being able to spend the time with my colleagues 
from Utah and New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Can the 
gentleman just remind me of the bill number again?
  Mr. CONAWAY. It is H.R. 3550. I believe you are already a cosponsor.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am already a cosponsor, but I don't 
always remember bill numbers.
  Mr. CONAWAY. There are thousands of bills introduced. But this was in 
the 110th Congress, and it is styled The

[[Page H272]]

AMERICA Act, A Modest Effort to Read and Instill the Constitution 
Again.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And if the gentleman would inform us, do 
we have bipartisan support as far as cosponsors of the bill as of yet?
  Mr. CONAWAY. Not yet.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would encourage the gentleman, because I 
know I have been on the floor and while we have established this 
Congressional Constitutional Caucus, which is open to all Members of 
both sides of the aisle, I believe I have heard sitting on this floor 
that there is another caucus on the other side of the aisle which I 
guess is open but I haven't heard yet, the First Amendment Caucus. So 
at least there is at least one caucus over there who is concerned about 
the first amendment, if I am not mistaken, and hopefully maybe some of 
those Members would be willing to, if they are eager to speak on the 
first amendment, they will want to be knowledgeable about the entire 
Constitution as well. We might want to reach out to them.
  I share with the gentleman from Texas his eagerness to see this 
legislation. It is one of those commonsense sort of things that if you 
are engaged in crafting laws, then you should know what your authority 
for crafting those laws are. And, of course, that authority comes to us 
not from previous laws that we have passed, but from the Constitution 
of the United States, which was obviously ratified and supported by all 
the States and the people thereof.
  The gentleman from Texas also makes me think back on my history. I am 
an attorney, and you got me thinking there for a moment what my history 
as far as the courses that I have taken over the years. I went to a 
State school for undergraduate studies, Montclair State College and now 
it is Montclair State University, I believe I took a constitutional law 
class there and I believe it was a requirement for that class to read 
the Constitution. But then I went to law school; and as I am sitting 
here listening to your remarks, I don't believe that I was required in 
any of my courses, whether it is contracts or torts and the whole 
litany of courses that you are required in the first, second, and third 
year of law school, I don't believe that I was required as a law 
student to ever sit down and read the entire Constitution. Most of what 
you do in law school, actually, is the case method, in which case all 
you are doing is reading cases. And cases simply give you information 
of judges' interpretation of other cases.
  Mr. CONAWAY. It just occurred to me. I am a CPA in a different life, 
and in order to keep my license current I have to have 40 hours a year 
of continuing education, and I know you as a lawyer also have to have 
continuing education. Maybe this could be looked at as continuing 
education for Members of Congress to spend the 2 hours it might take to 
read through the document. So, if nothing else, we could say we are 
trying to learn how to do our jobs better, much in the vein that the 
other professionals, doctors, lawyers, and CPAs year in and year out 
have to do to hone their skills.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I like that idea. CE credits, continuing 
education credits for Members of Congress.
  There are two avenues to get people to do something, whatever their 
professions are. One is the CE way, and the other is just personal 
pressure. If you are in a profession, you have to be good at your 
profession to continue to be hired. I guess, in Congress, you have to 
be good in your profession to continue to be reelected. But the other 
way, I would suggest to constituents who may hear these remarks 
tonight, to ask their Member of Congress at the next town hall meeting, 
at the next town hall meeting when the questions come up just to ask 
the Members of Congress, ``By the way, when was the last time, if ever, 
that you have read the U.S. Constitution?'' I know there are a few 
folks out there like Roscoe Bartlett that carry the Constitution with 
them. But that would be a good question for the members of the public 
to ask their Members of Congress. Give them a quiz, ask if they know 
what any of the 10 amendments are to the Bill of Rights and so on.
  Going back now to comments by the gentleman from Utah of the 
foundation or the formulation of the Bill of Rights, and I note the 
gentleman touched upon this. Part of the reason initially why there was 
a, I don't know if you want to say a pushback, but not so much of a 
strong desire, except for folks such as Mason and also what were called 
the anti-Federalists, a lot of people who talk about the Federalist 
Society and the Federalists who gave us this and Hamiltonians. But the 
anti-Federalists were on the other side. Part of the reason why there 
was a pushback and saying we don't need this was because the original 
push for creation of the current Constitution came after the Articles 
of Confederation. And originally, when they set up their, convention is 
not the right word but in essence that is what it was, to establish a 
new document, what they were intending to do was simply to create a new 
document or make amendments to the old Articles of Confederation to 
grant certain powers to a centralized government. So if their intent 
was to create or to establish powers for this new centralized 
government, there was not the mindset to say, well, we also at the same 
time need to set out for what the powers or rights of the individuals 
are; because that is taken as a given, that it is the people who have 
the rights and the powers, and we are just simply granting some of 
those rights or powers to the Federal Government to be able to better 
administer the commerce and trade and so on and so forth that the 
Articles was incompetent of doing.
  So I think that was part of the discussion that was going on: If we 
are simply giving certain rights over here to a central government, we 
really don't need to establish it.
  The anti-Federalists realized, however, that there was a need for it; 
that without establishing the paramount power of the individual and 
also the state, that this centralized government could consume the 
States. And that is exactly what Mason was talking about when he set 
forth his objections to it. It was, as I said before, I believe in 
September of 1787, it was during the final days of the Constitutional 
Convention that George Mason wrote the reasons for his refusal to sign 
the Constitution. He did it, interestingly enough, on the back of a 
committee of style report. Since we have committee reports up here, he 
simply wrote them all down. Copies of those, manuscript copies of that 
document were then circulated, and Mason sent copies to various 
individuals, including George Washington, a long-time friend of his. 
Washington, though, was on the other side of this issue. So, on 
November 22, the objections were printed in the Virginia Journal. 
Interestingly, again, it was done at the behest of Washington's 
secretary, and the reason they were printing them out publicly like 
this was so that Washington could publicly refute them. Those original 
documents are still with us today. They are in the Chapin Library in 
Williams College.

                              {time}  1845

  The preamble of his objections read: ``There is no declaration of 
rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the 
laws and constitution of the several States, the declarations of rights 
in the separate States are no security, nor are the people secure even 
in the enjoyment of the benefits of the common law.''
  So Mason is simply saying here that I may live in a State, and my 
State may provide certain rights, but if the Federal Government's 
rights or powers are paramount to my own State's rights, the Federal 
Government can step in and take away any rights that my State 
constitution guarantees me, and I would lose those rights and 
privileges that are God given.
  Now, a lot of this discussion by people listening is: How does this 
affect me? This is a lot of philosophical talking. Well, it isn't 
really. Day after day, as the gentleman from Utah mentioned before, we 
pass bill after bill, and some are signed into law. Some are 
perfunctory, naming of a school or post office, but others are 
profoundly important upon our daily lives. Do I have to remind the 
public about the PATRIOT Act and the discussion that entailed there? 
Later on I believe we will be discussing the FISA Court's issues and 
the powers; again, the issues of the powers of the various branches of 
the government and how they impact upon our individual liberties.
  These are all fundamental questions that come back to not powers 
created

[[Page H273]]

in the House or Senate or the executive, but rights or powers that we 
see in the documents, the Constitution of the United States.
  It is germane that we bring these things up this year, 2008, a 
Presidential election year. Most of the candidates are speaking about 
change. Either side of the party is talking about change. But the 
fundamental question that the voter has to ask: Is the change that they 
are espousing and bringing about founded on any constitutional 
principles or are they simply giving us change for change's sake and 
change that does not have any constitutional powers or rights given to 
the Federal Government?
  I see we have been joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx), and if she would like to speak now, I appreciate her 
participation.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Garrett. I appreciate the leadership 
that you give to the Constitution Caucus, along with our colleague, Mr. 
Bishop. I thank you for letting me participate.
  I think about the Constitution every day and I think about it many, 
many times during the day. I think that what we are doing through the 
Constitution Caucus is an extremely important thing, that we come here 
and talk about it and bring attention to it to the American people, 
because I think that because we live in basically a peaceful time, I 
know we are at war with Islamic terrorists and we have to be dealing 
with that every day, but basically we go about our work on a day-to-day 
basis, we go to school, go to work, doing the day-to-day things that we 
do in this country without thinking too much about what is happening 
worldwide. But we need to be aware of the fact that it is because we 
have such a wonderful document as the Constitution that we are able to 
do that. We are a Nation of laws, and our laws are rooted in the 
Constitution itself.
  I want to say again that I don't really need much of a reminder of 
that, but during the Christmas recess that we had I had the opportunity 
to take my 11-year-old grandson and 8\1/2\-year-old granddaughter and 
daughter to Philadelphia for 3 days. My grandson is studying United 
States history, and I thought what a great opportunity for him to be 
able to go to Philadelphia and see where the Declaration of 
Independence was written and signed, where the Constitution was signed, 
and reflect a little bit on those documents and on this country and 
particularly the beginning of the country.
  I want to commend the trip to anybody in the United States to 
Philadelphia. There is a new Constitution Center there that I had not 
seen before. They have marvelous displays, marvelous examples of the 
Constitution and what it means to us on a day-to-day basis in this 
country. The amendments to the Constitution are spelled out, and the 
rulings of the Supreme Court relative to many different issues are 
there. So it is a great opportunity to go.
  But it reminds us again, I think, of the really radical notion that 
this country was in the 1700s and still is in many ways. Our 
Constitution is really a short and very, very elegant document. I know 
tonight that we have been talking somewhat about the Bill of Rights and 
what that meant to the Constitution and was the Bill of Rights needed. 
I know that even when the Constitution was being debated in the 1700s 
that there was a great deal of debate about it. But I think that one of 
the tasks that we should always focus on, and we do most of the time, 
is focus on particularly the ninth and 10th amendments, those two 
amendments in the Bill of Rights.
  I also know that coming from the State of North Carolina, that it is 
probably unlikely that the State of North Carolina would have ever 
ratified the Constitution had it not been for the Bill of Rights, and I 
think there were other delegates to the Constitutional Convention who 
felt the same way.
  But those of us again who have such a particular fondness for our 
Constitution and for highlighting it and continually bringing it to the 
attention of the American people, that most of the time we want to 
highlight the ninth and 10th amendments.
  Again, taking my grandchildren to Philadelphia and talking with 
people there and talking with them about it, you try to get people to 
understand the radical notion that we, the first three words of the 
Constitution, ``We the People,'' how radical that idea was then, how 
radical in many ways it is now when you look at what is happening all 
over the world in terms of violence and upheaval in other governments, 
and to realize how little of that we have had in this country because 
we are so grounded in the words, ``We the People.''
  I want to say a little about the ninth and 10th amendments and then 
make some comments about my concern particularly about the 10th 
amendment and what has happened over the last 200 or so years in this 
country.
  The ninth amendment, of course, is the enumeration in the 
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or 
disparage others retained by the people. Again, the emphasis always is 
on the rights that belong to the people, those inalienable rights that 
are spelled out. And then of course the 10th amendment, 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. 
Always the emphasis comes back to the people and to the powers that are 
given to the States.
  One of the things that troubles me the most and that I highlight 
whenever I talk to school groups or even other people about the 
Constitution and about our work here is that we have gotten too far 
away from the 10th amendment in our exercise of power here at the 
Federal level. We have taken onto ourselves at the Federal level many, 
many more powers than I think the Founders anticipated that we would 
take on. We have no business, for example, being involved in education. 
There is nowhere in the Constitution the mention of education, and that 
is not a responsibility of the Federal Government.
  We have taken on the issue of health care and so many more things 
that I think we should not be involved in. If we would contain our 
activities and responsibilities to those things that the Founders said 
we should be dealing with, I think we might be able to find governing a 
lot more manageable here at the Federal level. I think we have lost 
much of the sense of accountability for Federal spending because we are 
not able to put the time into it that we need in terms of oversight 
because we are so involved in things that we have no business being 
involved in.
  We must be very grateful for the ninth and 10th amendments, I think, 
because they are bulwarks against unchecked expansion, many people 
would say, and are really the ideological foundation of the other eight 
amendments. But again, we lose site of that because we go out there and 
get involved in all kinds of good ideas and good intentions, but they 
are simply violating what the Constitution says we should be about. And 
of course we take that oath to uphold the Constitution, but we tweak 
things in an effort to make better things happen.
  But again, I want us to constantly be reminding the American public 
of what they should be demanding from us. They should be demanding of 
the Federal Government that we not get involved in those things that 
are left to the States and left to the people because that takes us 
away from looking after particularly the defense of this Nation which 
again allows us to do those things on a day-to-day basis that we do 
without very much thinking about it.

  I hope that as we bring this to the attention of the public, that 
they will be more demanding of us in terms of these issues. There are 
very hearty souls out there in the country who do that on a regular 
basis. I know that they do it to me on a regular basis, and I am sure 
they do it to some of my colleagues. But I think what we need is those 
frequent revolutions that Jefferson talked about, that that would be 
good for our country.
  I think we saw that happen last year a little bit when the Senate was 
debating what they called a comprehensive immigration bill. The people 
of this country clearly did not want that. They spoke and they spoke 
with a loud voice. What I hope we will see at times when the Congress 
is dealing with issues that are not covered in the Constitution, that 
people will more often rise up and say, We don't want you to do those 
things. Pay attention to what

[[Page H274]]

we are saying. Those are our responsibilities or they are the 
responsibilities of the States.
  So I want to thank you again for having this Special Order tonight 
and giving us the opportunity to bring to the attention of the public 
the issues that we are concerned about relative to the Constitution and 
say that I will turn it back to my colleague from Utah who is the 
cochair for this Special Order.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
expressing her comments about the Bill of Rights and the significance 
of the ninth and 10th amendments.
  I would now like to concentrate on a couple of other bills that are 
in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the second amendment. As we talked 
earlier, it is very important for us to understand and know the meaning 
of the words.
  The preamble of the Constitution talks about a more perfect union, 
which is a terribly ungrammatical saying. You can be perfect, but you 
can't be more perfect. What we don't realize is that this is a term of 
art historically used. ``More perfect union'' was the concept of the 
union of England, Scotland and Wales, where all of a sudden their 
defense was based on a navy, not necessarily on armies.
  It is interesting in our Constitution we prohibit an army from 
lasting any longer than 2 years, for specific reasons.

                              {time}  1900

  Armies, at that time, were mercenary units. When one thought of the 
army, they thought of mercenaries. When the British were fighting us in 
the Revolutionary War, they didn't send British over here. They sent 
German Hessians over here for us.
  The concept was for an army, when it was not attacking foreign 
countries, a tyrant could use the army to attack his own people and 
there would be no remorse since they were not necessarily of the same 
nationality. The idea of a popular army does not come until the French 
Revolution, and that's still a couple of decades away.
  So when we talk about the militia, at that particular period of time 
the militia meant the people. Army was a mercenary; militia was 
individuals who were, by definition, to be a balance in the power 
against the government.
  When Madison wrote that all members, all Americans should be in the 
militia, and all Americans should be able to have a gun and know how to 
use a gun, he was making reference to that historical concept.
  When one looks at the second amendment today, they have to realize 
that the word militia was a reference to the people.
  With that, I would like to yield some time now to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) who has a few comments specifically about the 
second amendment which I think is very apropos as we're talking about 
the Bill of Rights today.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I believe in the 
Constitution as James Madison and company meant it. In fact, I carry a 
copy in my pocket at all times. It's getting a little shopworn and dog-
eared. I describe myself as a Madisonian Republican. And it's 
interesting, most people in our country today don't realize that James 
Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams all 
considered themselves to be Republicans because they believed in very 
limited government, and that's what I believe in also.
  But I rise today to join in with my colleagues on this discussion of 
the importance of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, specifically 
about the second amendment.
  I began to be politically active by coming to Washington as vice 
president for Safari Club International. And in my capacity of being a 
vice president, I would work on hunters' rights and gun owners' rights. 
And I must say that, as you look at this, as my colleague just 
mentioned, the militia in the days of the Constitution writing meant 
every single male 18 years of age and older.
  In his address to the second session of the First Congress of the 
United States, the President, George Washington stated, ``Firearms 
stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the 
American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.''
  He went on, ``From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to this present day, 
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, 
security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. 
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference. 
They deserve a place of honor with all that's good.''
  When I ran for Congress, I made a commitment to the constituents in 
my district, the 10th Congressional District in Georgia, that if 
elected, I would fight to protect their constitutional rights and their 
pocketbooks for every American. I promised to apply a four-way test to 
every piece of legislation that comes before the House for a vote and 
everything that we do in our office. Before every vote, every vote that 
we take, I ask whether the legislation is moral and right, and does it 
fit within the constraints of what God gives us in His inherent word.
  The second question, is it constitutional. And I'm not talking about 
this perverted idea of the Constitution that this Congress and the 
administration and particularly the judiciary are operating on today, 
but is it constitutional according to James Madison and the people who 
wrote it. They wrote voluminously about what they meant in the 
Constitution of the United States, and we in all three branches of 
government need to apply their writings to how we operate government.
  The third question is do we really need it. And the fourth is can we 
afford it. I believe so firmly in those that I printed those up and 
it's on the desk of every single staffer in my office. Upholding and 
defending law-abiding citizens' rights to bear arms passes all four of 
those tests.
  The second amendment of the Constitution declares that ``A well 
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
  Our Founding Fathers believed very firmly that an armed populace was 
the only way to prevent tyranny by their own government and I, 
likewise, adhere to that same philosophy.
  I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and I strongly support the 
Constitution's second amendment right to bear arms, and will defend the 
right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, use and keep firearms, as 
well as to bear those arms and to transport those arms. I vigorously 
oppose all attempts to restrict the second amendment. I believe that 
any law, local, State, or Federal, that infringes upon a law-abiding 
citizen's God-given right to bear an arm, a God-given right that's 
supposed to be protected by the Constitution of the United States, any 
law, Federal, State or local that infringes upon those rights are 
unconstitutional, and I'll fight to try to restore those rights that 
have been already put in place on all levels.
  Since 1975, the residents of Washington, DC have had their second 
amendment right to bear arms stolen from them by the District's 
government. Last year, in Heller v. DC, the DC Court of Appeals ruled 
that the gun ban in the District of Columbia violated an individual's 
right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Constitution and 
the second amendment; thus, nullifying the gun ban that the District of 
Columbia put upon its citizens.
  Upon appeal by the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court has 
decided to consider this very important second amendment constitutional 
case. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of 
DC's ban on handgun ownership and self-defense by law-abiding residents 
in their own homes.
  The Court will first address the question of whether the second 
amendment to the Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, 
protects an individual's right to own a firearm and to protect 
themselves, or whether it is a right of the government.
  We already see that the government cannot protect citizens. In fact, 
the courts even ruled that the police do not have an obligation to 
protect a citizen anywhere. We only have that right ourselves. If the 
Court agrees that it is an individual right, then they will determine 
if the District's self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional or 
not.

[[Page H275]]

  The Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to return to the 
original intent and the meaning of the second amendment. The second 
amendment protects us. It's a fundamental and an individual right of 
law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, 
any law infringing upon this freedom, including the ban on self-defense 
and on handgun ownership, is unconstitutional.
  Further, every study that's been done has shown that gun control 
provides absolutely no benefit in curbing crime. Rather, these types of 
restrictions only leave law-abiding citizens more susceptible to 
criminal attack. Other than law enforcement, only criminals have guns 
in the District of Columbia.
  In fact, it was interesting, the community of Morton Grove, Illinois 
passed a ban on handguns. And then in response to that, a city in 
Georgia, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance stating that every 
household should own a firearm. It was a very interesting social 
experiment.
  And what happened? The crime rate in Morton Grove, Illinois 
skyrocketed. The crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia plummeted. These bans 
do not protect anybody but a criminal.
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
correctly ruled that DC statutes are unconstitutional. I strongly 
believe that the ruling should and will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I understand we 
have 3 minutes. I thank him for his elaboration on the importance of 
one of the critical elements of the Bill of Rights, the second 
amendment. I am just referring now to the gentlelady from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), knowing that we only have 3 minutes left. Does she 
have further? I think she does.
  I yield her now such time as she may consume.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  The comments Mr. Bishop made a little bit ago reminded me, when we 
were talking about the second amendment, that if you look again at the 
Bill of Rights, and you realize that every one of those issues, almost, 
was in reaction to what had happened during the war for independence, 
and just prior to the war for independence, with the actions on the 
part of England toward the United States. And I think that it is very 
important that we remember, again, the context in which those 
amendments were written, because the abuses of a national or Federal 
Government were very, very clear in the minds of the people of this 
country at the time that they worked on the Declaration of 
Independence, and they outlined their grievances there. And then, as 
they looked at the amendments to the Constitution, they did not want 
soldiers billeted in their homes. They did want the right to assembly. 
They did want the right to freedom of speech. All of those things 
needed to be spelled out because of the abuses of power of the Federal 
Government.
  Now, we have not seen that very much in our 200-plus-year history 
since the Constitution was adopted. But it's very important that we put 
it into the historical context that it was in at the time, and 
understand, again, that under the rule of the British Government, they 
didn't have those rights and those rights could be very easily abused. 
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add that to the comments 
that I had made earlier.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is there any time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Welch of Vermont). 30 seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. In the concluding 30 seconds, I again 
thank the gentleman from Utah and the gentlelady for her comments as 
well. And as we continue this elaboration, education on the Bill of 
Rights and the overall Constitution, I hearken back to the gentleman's 
comments from Texas and the gentleman from Georgia, that we should all 
ask the seminal and basic question for whatever we do here in this 
Congress and of course in the Presidential election that is coming up 
as well when they make all the promises to us across the country. Is 
what they're proposing to do, is it in the Constitution?

                          ____________________