[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 15955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kratovil. Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the last action that we took in this 
body today was a resolution honoring the Constitution, which we 
celebrate tomorrow. Since we are not in session tomorrow, I wish to 
talk for a moment about that inspired document this evening.
  It's difficult to do that, because as we talk about the Constitution, 
I am looking straight at the relief of George Mason, who was one of 
those unique characters in American history, one of three men who spent 
the entire time at the Constitutional Convention and then refused to 
sign the document.
  When I was teaching school, I always insisted my students had to tell 
me why Mason refused to sign it, which, of course, was because it did 
not have the Bill of Rights. But I was always hoping, and hoping in 
vain, that some bright student would ask the better question, which is 
not why did Mason not sign, but why did all the other people who were 
there, the Founding Fathers at the convention not go along with Mason 
for a Bill of Rights?
  It was certainly not because they were opposed to civil liberties, 
but because the rest of the Founding Fathers realized that they could 
accomplish the same goal by the structure of government, by dividing 
power between the three branches of government horizontally so no 
branch had too much power, but equally important by dividing power 
vertically between the Federal and State level. So no level of 
government had too much power; you could accomplish the same goal of 
protection of individual freedoms.
  The issue at the Constitutional Convention was that of power. As the 
States met and then ratified this document, the issue of power was 
still there. We, of course, know of course that two States, North 
Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify the document until after the 
country was established. But five States, Virginia, Massachusetts, New 
York, Maryland and South Carolina, sent specific amendments that should 
be added to the document.
  Foremost in each of those State's amendments was the concept of 
sovereignty or the ability of States to make decisions. Their goal and 
their concepts were incorporated in the 10th Amendment to the 
Constitution, which put in written form the unnamed structure that the 
Founding Fathers had established in the Constitution.
  As one of our Justices on the Supreme Court said, the Constitution 
protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among 
sovereigns, among branches of government, precisely so that we may 
resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as the 
expedient solution to the crisis of the day.
  For a century and a half, this Nation basically honored that concept. 
In the last half century, though, we have stretched the idea 
significantly. Starting with the progressive era at the early 1900s, it 
was President Wilson who called this concept the separation of powers 
political witchcraft. He said that separating powers into hidden 
corners prevented us from consolidating powers to be used.
  In the early 1900s, the politicians and the philosophers who believed 
this did not do so because they misunderstood the Constitution, but 
because they understood it and did not like the fact that it prevented 
them from doing what they said were marvelous things.
  We, today, still have this issue of power before us. For the last 
couple of years we have debated on this floor the idea whether it is 
better to consolidate power in Washington with the ultimate goal of 
uniformity or to hold fast to the idea that States should be allowed to 
have alternative ideas and that our ultimate goal should be creativity.
  The 10th Amendment is not just about smaller government. It's about 
more effective government, what works best for people and the idea that 
not all programs have to be evolved from Washington. They also have 
their idea because the 10th Amendment talks power for States and 
individuals. In a concept that many of us on this floor can never get, 
there are some problems that don't need a solution by government at 
all.
  The issue is creativity, efficiency, and justice. The issue is can 
those best be resolved.
  We still have this question of power that we are dealing with today, 
and I would hope that we would reject the revisionist idea and, 
instead, go along and support the Founding Fathers. For both the 
constitutional structure and the 10th Amendment meant that our Founding 
Fathers were inspired to get it right.

                          ____________________