Would remaining Democrat or Republican Party candidates abide by the Constitution if elected?

It is indeed pathetic that a constituent has to remind Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders of basic Government 101 constitutional principles of separation of power. None of the two-major-party candidates have established confidence with the people that they revere, understand or will use the Constitution in the execution of the office they seek. Sadly, none have given any evidence that they have even read the document to which the president elect will, with one hand placed on the Bible and the other raised in oath, promise the following: "I do solemnly swear ... that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is even more pathetic that the people, after having experienced two presidents -- Barack Obama and George W. Bush -- and 15 years of little regard for the Constitution, would vote for candidates demonstrating the same disregard for our federal government's founding document. But it is also pathetic that few Millennials have had to read the Constitution in any class of study at the college or university level. So, let me outline the basic principles of this document to which every elected person in this country is bound.

First, we have federalism, shared or dual government, the federal government to primarily handle foreign policy and the states to handle domestic policy. Like a good marriage, neither usurps authority over the other; they are two separate and equal entities. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power.

This concept was so important that it was even more strongly defined in Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights: "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."

Any change in the Constitution necessitates the two governments reassembling and the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states, as per Article V. As such, most Trump, Clinton or Sanders campaign promises are outside Article I, Section 8, or are state prerogatives, and thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. Dual government was the principle concept housed in both the Articles of Confederation (our first national government) and thereafter under the Constitution. None of the three federal divisions of power created later -- executive, legislative or judicial -- can alter this first division of power except by permission of the states as provided for in Article V.

Second, in the Constitution, federal power was then divided into three separate entities: the legislative to make all the federal law that was constitutional, the executive to execute that law and the judicial to adjudicate that law when challenged. Each branch of government was restricted in its sphere.

The Legislative branch was limited in its law-making power to only four areas: to tax, to pay the nation's debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, prior to the first semicolon -- so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier: that such must be "uniform throughout the United States"; but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1, the power to tax had already been assigned to the House of Representatives to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power-grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed additional qualifiers, so Clauses 2-9 defined the law-making powers of Congress with respect to what general welfare is, and Clauses 10-17 defined what common defense is.

The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...," those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law it considered desirable but only within the four parameters and 17 qualifiers. Nor was there power given Congress to create bureaucracies to legislate in its place, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management and a hundred other such agencies.

As the Congress was not permitted to make any law it liked, the Executive Branch -- the president -- was also limited in Article II, Sections 2-3, in what he could do. Already noted is his primary responsibility "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...." Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become a principle violator of the Constitution. As reported in a previous column, simply stated, the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate; otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of power to make any rules or regulations to govern us. That is the job of Congress alone. The president can only persuade Congress to agree to his proposed changes.

The Judicial Branch -- Supreme Court -- was limited to only nine areas of adjudication. In two of these, those affecting public ministers and when a state is a party, the federal judicial branch was given complete (called original) jurisdiction. In the other seven, the Judicial Branch has appellate jurisdiction, "both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make." The Supreme Court cannot adjudicate in whatever matters it chooses but only in two areas and, in the other seven areas, only at the permission of Congress.

And, of course, there are areas forbidden to federal government intervention, mostly listed in the Bill of Rights, as for example, the Second Amendment. If any of these basic principles sound strange or foreign, it is because educators and the media have failed to transfer knowledge of the Constitution to our Millennials. In any case, it is doubtful that any of the Democrat or Republican presidential candidates left would abide by the Constitution in the exercise of presidential office.

Harold Pease, Ph.D, is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Editorial on 05/18/2016