The Diane Rehm Show

Every time I read the Constitution, I come away wondering where the idea came that it designed three co-equal branches of goverment. Seems to me that Congress has all the power. It can lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce between the states, declare war, print money . . . Seems like our founders vested Congress with the majority of the most important powers.

This is not to say that rereading the Constitution isn't something we should do regularly. But it's the Federalist Papers that make the whole process come alive.

Why is there so little discussion on the "well regulated militia" portion of the second amendment?

re: statistics on whether or not we need a new constitution.
Are there comparative statistics from history? People tend to grow more conservative with age.

Recently Congress passed a law that declassified material over the 200 year old line. According to the late Hon. Richard S. Rodney, Federal Judge for Delaware, and a former member of the Delaware Supreme Court, the identity of the author of the Constitution is not known. Judge Rodney was a decendant of the signer Ross and Reed. He was also a decendant of the same line as Caesar Rodney, who had no issue.
Based upon being a Nation that is governed by the rule of Law, why has the author' name continued to be withheld?
Perhaps it is because this was not hidden by classification?
The late Judge Rodney' written remark would appear to anticipate that this name would be released!
Are not the American People entitled to the full story?

The Founders did vest the majority of enumerated powers with the legislative branch. In part it was because of their great fear that placing too much power in the Executive Branch would lead to that branch usurping the power of other branches and eventually lead to a government run by a tyrant.

Notice also that the Legislative Branch is Article I. The Executive Branch is Article II. In general, when writing legislative documents, one would often list the provisions in order of priority and importance. It is clear, at least to me, that the Founders very much wanted to bestow more authority to Congress than to the Executive.

As to the independence of the judiciary, that was a brilliant step to assure the balance of power.

In addition to reading the Federalist Papers as noted by another commenter here, I suggest reading Madison's papers. His correspondence with Jefferson provides great insight. (Remember that when you are reading the Federalist Papers, some of them conflict. They were primarily written by Hamilton and Madison and the two of them did not agree on a number of issues. Hamilton wanted a much stronger Executive Branch than Madison.)

Also, reading the Declaration of Independence is also insightful. Though many Americans today seem to think that the Revolution was fought because of high taxes on tea, the Declaration of Independence very clearly lays out a litany of concerns with the King's rule. If you read it first, you will then see how the Constitution proposes to address many of those concerns. (If you would prefer to watch/listen to a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence, check out the Lear center (http://www.learcenter.org/incEngine/incEngine_Player_minimum.php?content...))

thank you so much for what you do.

and for the series on US Constitution.

pls dont gloss over how the US went off the gold standard--just bc it happened long time ago doesnt make it any less wrong! that is common error ppl make all the time. If USA had not gone off the gold standard, then the billionaire bully club would not have been able to loot the American ppl.

Also AMERICA is a state of mind really isnt it--why cant when will we have a virtual country where everyone shares the same American values right there where they are physically and share in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. That way there would be less disagreement within physical nations bc ppl with major differences could merely join the country that best suited their values etc.

Also with all the trend of multiple different cultures coexisting within countries now days--there is an inherent looming conflict as we dont share the same anthropological story--iow how do we motivate our young men to go and fight to die for our country if we are attacked. If they dont identify as being strongly assimilated and accepted within the dominant culture(altho fragmented) they wont fight as fiercely--right?

Thank you Diane for this excellent show.

My two cents:

If the Federal government was supposed to have UNLIMITED powers, why would Section-8 of Article-1 have only 23-enumerated powers?
The introduction reads: Congress shall provide for the general Welfare of the United ''STATES'' (my quotes) not the ''people'' of the United States.
In other words, the States take care of the people; the Feds take care of the States.
Section-8 also states the Federal government is allowed to own the District of Columbia and other land purchased from the States for Forts, Magazines, Arsenals and dock-Yards. If so, how can the Federal government own 86% of States like Nevada?

The 2nd Amendment:
Obviously in 1790 muskets were an important part of rural America in order to hunt for food, and provide for self-defense. So I don't think the Amendment was intended to mean that a person could only bear arms if he (or she) was eligible to serve or serving in the militia.

The 5th Amendment:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If so, how can President Obama order the assassination of four US citizens?

I look forward to your next show on the US Constitution.