The Power and Jurisdiction: A History of Limited Government in America pt. 3

Previously in this series, we delved into the principles of limited government as enshrined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, where the enumerated powers of the nation’s legislative branch are meticulously outlined. Today, we will explore how these guiding philosophies of the Founding Era shape and guide the entirety of the supreme law of our land—from Article II to VI.

Article II

Article II of the Constitution delineates the office and duties of the president. What’s noteworthy in this section is what it doesn’t entail. Many Americans might assume that the primary function of the president is to make laws, yet this notion is conspicuously absent in Article II. It’s crucial to recall that, as stipulated in Section 1, Article I, “All legislative Powers”—the authority to enact laws—“herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” While the president bears numerous responsibilities—serving as Commander in Chief, negotiating treaties (“with the advice and consent of the Senate”), appointing ambassadors and judges, among others—the Founders were reluctant to concentrate such tremendous power in the hands of a single individual.

Article III

Misconceptions surrounding Article III, which outlines the judicial powers of the United States, are rampant. How often have you heard it said that the Founders created three equal branches of government? While the wording of Article III does not explicitly refute this notion, consider the rationale behind it—why would the Founders accord an unelected judiciary the same level of authority as those branches which are more directly accountable to the people? Needless to say, the Founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to be equal with Congress or the White House, nor did they intend for the judiciary to act as an instrument of the executive.

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” claimed Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78. “This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive” [emphasis added].

Indeed, the Founders crafted the judiciary to ensure that, as long as it adhered to its constitutional parameters, it would never threaten the individual liberties of the American people. Moreover, it was, by design, the weakest branch.

Article IV

Often overlooked, Article IV addresses the complicated relationships between the states and between the states and the federal government. According to Section 4 of this Article, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….” This means that the states cannot adopt a monarchical system—even if the people voted for one. Monarchy is strictly forbidden in the United States.

Article V

Unquestionably, the Founders viewed Article V, particularly the convention method, as the people’s safeguard for redressing federal abuses. While most Americans are familiar with the first method for amending the Constitution (amendments originate in Congress before being ratified by the states), the second option, the Article V convention process, allows amendments to spring directly from the states. In Hamilton’s view, as articulated in Federalist 85, the nation “may safely rely” on this process “to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” As I wrote last week, the Founders foresaw that even Congress—the only other body with the power to amend the Constitution—might one day succumb to tyranny. Therefore, they included additional safeguards to ensure that, even in such a scenario, the people would retain the means to reclaim control of power via constitutional amendment.

Article VI

The final applicable article (Article VII deals with the process of ratifying the Constitution), Article VI props up the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, effectively repressing any competitor. This means it does not matter if Congress passes a law expanding its power beyond the confines of Article I or if a state attempts to abridge a right guaranteed by a subsequent amendment—if it contradicts the Constitution, it is not valid.

Collectively, these Articles establish a national government empowered to execute a few vital functions while preserving the spirited independence, entrepreneurial spirit, and self-governance inherent to the American people.

Using Article V of the Constitution, Convention of States aims to restore our federal government to the Founders’ original intent, as expressed in the supreme law of the land. As supporter Mark Pukita explained during a recent Article V hearing, “The Convention of States effort is not merely a political maneuver. It is a clarion call for the revival of the American dream. It seeks to create ... fertile ground for entrepreneurs to thrive, unencumbered by excessive regulation, and to guarantee that the personal freedoms our forebears fought for remain intact. By supporting this cause, we champion a future where innovation, prosperity, and freedom are the hallmarks of our nation.”

To join the movement, sign the petition below!