Our U.S. government design has three branches. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches ensure a stable balance of power through checks and balances, and each have their respective responsibilities in order to keep our country running. This first-in-history design is so successful that all 50 states and many countries practice it, each with their own variations.
Notably, as our governments have grown, things are not quite as neat as they began. As an example, Congress has granted the executive branch the ability to create regulations for certain topics that have the same force of law as Congressional legislation. As a result, we have executive branch agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that create legal regulations. But the same concept of checks and balances still applies to these delegations. One group creates legislation, another group judges constitutionality and legal complications, and a third group executes and enforces the laws.
Thus, when an individual is up for election, appointment, or hire, their role is clearly defined. Just like when I hire a plumber, I don’t expect them to do the job of an electrician, when I vote for my U.S. House representative, I vote for them primarily based on their legislative aims, and consider much less how they would enforce laws and how they interpret the Constitution. While these latter two principles are supplementary to their job responsibilities, their primary responsibility involves the creation and molding of legislation. In short, I voted for my representative because I thought they would be best at legislating, not judging or enforcing, on my behalf.
So, when legislators are faced with difficult decisions on what legislation to pass, their action should be informed by what would be best for their constituents because this is their defined responsibility and what they were elected to do. One frequent example of legislators negating this primary responsibility involves gun legislation.
In the United States, we have a gun violence problem, which you can learn more about by reading our Recipe for Disaster post. One way we can reduce gun violence is by passing legislation that includes items like red flag laws, gun-purchase waiting periods, and/or background checks. However, many legislators refuse to even consider this type of legislation because they say it would violate the Second Amendment. In reality, this gun legislation may violate the Constitution, and further, legislators are not elected to interpret the Constitution.
While national legislators swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, their job responsibility does not include interpreting the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution involves many responsibilities, including passing legislation in good faith to strengthen our Union and not violating the Constitution. Passing legislation that is ruled to be unconstitutional is not considered a violation of the Constitution. Doing so would pose a huge risk to any legislator who wants to challenge current constitutional interpretation and would significantly stalemate the process of interpreting the Constitution. Thus, a legislator’s job responsibility does not include having the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution. Instead, judges interpret and have the final say on what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment. So, when legislators refuse to pass legislation because they say it would violate the Constitution, they are actually pre-empting the abilities of judges to do their job by interpreting the Constitution themselves, which is not what they were elected to do. In these situations, legislators are acting as the expert in a field they were not chosen to be an expert in. This would be like a plumber fixing the electrical wiring for your bathroom. While a plumber may be competent at plumbing, and you need good plumbing and electrical wiring for a bathroom, plumbers are not chosen for their merits on electrical wiring, and they are likely to make an electrical wiring mistake because they are not its respective expert.
In some cases, refusing to pass legislation because it is unconstitutional is reasonable. For example, it is settled Constitutional doctrine that you can publicly say, “I hate our government” because it is protected free speech. Any laws that are passed to criminalize this speech are almost certain to be overturned by the judicial branch. However, even settled constitutional doctrine can be overturned by laws that challenge our current interpretation of the Constitution. For example, we have seen the right to an abortion evolve to settled doctrine and then be removed through laws that challenged Constitutional doctrine. Similarly, minimum wage laws were considered unconstitutional until a minimum wage law challenged this interpretation in 1937. This challenge led to the Supreme Court ruling that minimum wage laws were Constitutional, paving the way for their commonplace across the United States. Further, some parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, are still unsettled. And these parts will only be interpreted by the Supreme Court when a lawsuit (about a law or event) challenges current Constitutional interpretation and is brought to the Supreme Court.
So, when representatives are considering how to vote on legislation, especially on legislation involving gun regulations, which have the opportunity to improve the safety of our communities and are not fully settled Constitutional doctrine, they should first be considering what is in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. Legislators deciding the constitutionality of many gun regulations prevents a better official understanding of our Constitution and potential progress in protecting our communities. It also ignores Constitutional history, representatives’ respective role of legislating on behalf of their constituents, and the system of checks and balances that gives the power to interpret the Constitution to the judicial branch.
Evidence-based governance requires that we trust experts and that we look to the past to learn for our future. We have learned that government functions well when legislators focus on their job, judges focus on their job, and executives focus on their job – as they are the respective experts, and therefore best equipped to make evidence-based decisions in their job responsibilities. So, when our representatives perform the job duties that they are respective experts in, as we elect them to do, they become more effective, we trust them more, they keep our systems of checks and balances in line, our tax-payer dollars become better spent, and they continue our pursuit of a more perfect union, including the pursuit of safer communities.
Yours in republic keeping,
W. Hayden Farris
Franklin Party Operations Director
Who's Poor Richard?
Benjamin Franklin, writing under the pseudonym Richard Saunders (AKA "Poor Richard"), published Poor Richard's Almanack from 1732 to 1758. The almanack provided useful information, proverbial wisdom, and humor to the American colonies.
In keeping with Franklin's legacy, Poor Richard's Blog tackles today’s complex issues and the foundations of the Franklin Party, while hopefully also dispensing some wisdom and good humor along the way.
The
Announcements
Commentary
And More
Poor Richard’s Blog
Poor Richard's Blog
Benjamin Franklin, writing under the pseudonym Richard Saunders (AKA "Poor Richard"), published Poor Richard's Almanack from 1732 to 1758. The almanack provided useful information, proverbial wisdom, and humor to the American colonies.
In keeping with Franklin's legacy, Poor Richard's Blog tackles today’s complex issues and the foundations of the Franklin Party, while hopefully also dispensing some wisdom and good humor along the way.
Welcome to the Franklin Party Newsletter!
Respective Experts
Our U.S. government design has three branches. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches ensure a stable balance of power through checks and balances, and each have their respective responsibilities in order to keep our country running. This first-in-history design is so successful that all 50 states and many countries practice it, each with their own variations.
Notably, as our governments have grown, things are not quite as neat as they began. As an example, Congress has granted the executive branch the ability to create regulations for certain topics that have the same force of law as Congressional legislation. As a result, we have executive branch agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that create legal regulations. But the same concept of checks and balances still applies to these delegations. One group creates legislation, another group judges constitutionality and legal complications, and a third group executes and enforces the laws.
Thus, when an individual is up for election, appointment, or hire, their role is clearly defined. Just like when I hire a plumber, I don’t expect them to do the job of an electrician, when I vote for my U.S. House representative, I vote for them primarily based on their legislative aims, and consider much less how they would enforce laws and how they interpret the Constitution. While these latter two principles are supplementary to their job responsibilities, their primary responsibility involves the creation and molding of legislation. In short, I voted for my representative because I thought they would be best at legislating, not judging or enforcing, on my behalf.
So, when legislators are faced with difficult decisions on what legislation to pass, their action should be informed by what would be best for their constituents because this is their defined responsibility and what they were elected to do. One frequent example of legislators negating this primary responsibility involves gun legislation.
In the United States, we have a gun violence problem, which you can learn more about by reading our Recipe for Disaster post. One way we can reduce gun violence is by passing legislation that includes items like red flag laws, gun-purchase waiting periods, and/or background checks. However, many legislators refuse to even consider this type of legislation because they say it would violate the Second Amendment. In reality, this gun legislation may violate the Constitution, and further, legislators are not elected to interpret the Constitution.
While national legislators swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, their job responsibility does not include interpreting the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution involves many responsibilities, including passing legislation in good faith to strengthen our Union and not violating the Constitution. Passing legislation that is ruled to be unconstitutional is not considered a violation of the Constitution. Doing so would pose a huge risk to any legislator who wants to challenge current constitutional interpretation and would significantly stalemate the process of interpreting the Constitution. Thus, a legislator’s job responsibility does not include having the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution. Instead, judges interpret and have the final say on what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment. So, when legislators refuse to pass legislation because they say it would violate the Constitution, they are actually pre-empting the abilities of judges to do their job by interpreting the Constitution themselves, which is not what they were elected to do. In these situations, legislators are acting as the expert in a field they were not chosen to be an expert in. This would be like a plumber fixing the electrical wiring for your bathroom. While a plumber may be competent at plumbing, and you need good plumbing and electrical wiring for a bathroom, plumbers are not chosen for their merits on electrical wiring, and they are likely to make an electrical wiring mistake because they are not its respective expert.
In some cases, refusing to pass legislation because it is unconstitutional is reasonable. For example, it is settled Constitutional doctrine that you can publicly say, “I hate our government” because it is protected free speech. Any laws that are passed to criminalize this speech are almost certain to be overturned by the judicial branch. However, even settled constitutional doctrine can be overturned by laws that challenge our current interpretation of the Constitution. For example, we have seen the right to an abortion evolve to settled doctrine and then be removed through laws that challenged Constitutional doctrine. Similarly, minimum wage laws were considered unconstitutional until a minimum wage law challenged this interpretation in 1937. This challenge led to the Supreme Court ruling that minimum wage laws were Constitutional, paving the way for their commonplace across the United States. Further, some parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, are still unsettled. And these parts will only be interpreted by the Supreme Court when a lawsuit (about a law or event) challenges current Constitutional interpretation and is brought to the Supreme Court.
So, when representatives are considering how to vote on legislation, especially on legislation involving gun regulations, which have the opportunity to improve the safety of our communities and are not fully settled Constitutional doctrine, they should first be considering what is in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. Legislators deciding the constitutionality of many gun regulations prevents a better official understanding of our Constitution and potential progress in protecting our communities. It also ignores Constitutional history, representatives’ respective role of legislating on behalf of their constituents, and the system of checks and balances that gives the power to interpret the Constitution to the judicial branch.
Evidence-based governance requires that we trust experts and that we look to the past to learn for our future. We have learned that government functions well when legislators focus on their job, judges focus on their job, and executives focus on their job – as they are the respective experts, and therefore best equipped to make evidence-based decisions in their job responsibilities. So, when our representatives perform the job duties that they are respective experts in, as we elect them to do, they become more effective, we trust them more, they keep our systems of checks and balances in line, our tax-payer dollars become better spent, and they continue our pursuit of a more perfect union, including the pursuit of safer communities.
Yours in republic keeping,
W. Hayden Farris
Franklin Party Operations Director
Share to:
Subscribe to Poor Richard’s Blog
You may also enjoy:
Handcuffing the Lifeguard
This congressional appropriations season, please tell your U.S. Representative to oppose Rep. Biggs’ Appropriations Amendment #4 (homeopathy FDA exemption) to H.R. 4368.
Declarations
Let’s declare our independence from the modern adversaries that would rip us apart, and redeclare our interdependence to each other.
Respective Experts
Some legislators refuse to pass certain (or any) gun legislation, saying it is unconstitutional. But, this decision ignores the totality of our history and the design of our government. Read why legislators should pass good-faith gun laws, even if they are unsure of its constitutionality.