A.1. General Legislation

Congress may enact necessary and proper laws to fulfill the general federal legislative duties required by the People and this Charter, provided such laws do not infringe the Rights of the People or exceed the limits of Constitutional delegation. Similarly, no law may infringe on the Rights and duties of the States as outlined under Article V.

This provision includes some nuance that doesn’t exist under the Constitution of 1789. Though the Framers were suspicious of both the people and a strong central government, they wrote in broad principles. That approach gives flexibility, which has been both its strength and its Achilles' Heel. The lack of explicit restrictions on Congress allowed it to make laws that expand beyond its original intent.

The language in this passage is more careful. It delegates legislative power to Congress, but specifies its purpose. It is to be used to fulfill the specific duties required by the people and the Charter. There’s no broader delegation. In fact, it goes on to set in place some crucial limits. Congress can’t enact laws that infringe rights. It’s important to note that this passage says “of the People.” It isn’t only citizens who are protected from Congressional overreach. Congress also can’t make laws that exceed those delegated to it in the Charter. Finally, federalism is protected. Congress is prohibited from infringing the rights and duties of the states.

So, under this framework, Congress could enact laws that help shore up property rights, or laws that preserve or enhance an individual’s freedom of expression. They can enact the federal budget. They can establish the Postal Service. They couldn’t, however, mandate that the states develop their own, local postal services, because that would violate the sovereignty of the states. Congress could, in the interest of preserving bodily autonomy, enact healthcare legislation, but it couldn’t force the states to do it. Congress couldn’t make a law requiring anyone to say aloud what their beliefs are (silence is a protected form of expression).

Any bill or law that results from a bill must meet the following requirements:

• It must be written in plain language, generally understandable by a Person with a tenth-grade education.

• Any technical terms must be defined in a definitions section either near the top of the bill or law, or in an easy-to-find and identified glossary in the text of the bill.

• The first Section of the bill or law must include a written explanation detailing why the bill was introduced and how it serves the larger purpose of the government in securing the Rights of the People.

Laws enacted before the ratification of this Charter are exempt from these requirements.

This passage provides specific elements that Congress must include in any bill it passes.

The first one is vital. The people deserve to understand the laws they are governed by. Now, a critic will almost certainly say, “Complex language is necessary to maintain legal precision. Simple language is inadequate to that task.” To them, I say, I wrote this entire charter in plain language. And I’m writing this commentary in even plainer language. It can be done, and the people have a right to expect that it will be done.

Sometimes, even with the greatest effort to maintain plain language, a technical term has to be used. In those instances, this passage also mandates an easily identified glossary of terms in every bill. The reason for this is the same as the reason for the first requirement. People have a right to understand the laws that govern them.

Every bill has to begin with a written explanation. That explanation has to detail the purpose of the bill. It also has to lay out how it serves the rights-first ethos of this Charter. What about this bill will secure the rights of Americans? For example, a bill on airport security can explain that it is designed to protect the life and bodily autonomy of travelers while preserving and respecting their right to privacy.

There is an exception for laws that are already on the books at the time of ratification of this Charter. That’s absolutely necessary. The plain language requirement alone would probably negate every law in the United States Code, otherwise.

Failure of Congress to meet the requirements outlined here renders the bill unable to be presented to the President for signature, remand, or veto. Any such failure must be remedied before a bill can advance to law.

This is straightforward. If a bill doesn’t meet the requirements, it can’t be sent to the President. Only after the shortcoming is addressed can it advance.

In any case where a federal appellate Court finds that these requirements were not met, the Court in question is obligated to remand the law to Congress for remedy and resubmission to the Court within thirty (30) days. Failure on the part of Congress to submit a remedied bill to the Court’s satisfaction requires the Court to strike down the law as unconstitutional, without regard for severability or other considerations.

It is a near certainty that bills will pass into law that don’t meet the requirements of this clause. That may be due to differing interpretations of the Charter language, nefarious intent (unlikely, but possible), or early on, simple unfamiliarity with the new requirements. Whatever the reason, if such a law is challenged in court, the court has a mandated route it must take. It isn’t discretionary. If the court finds a law is missing one or more of the required elements, it must remand the law back to Congress for remedy. Congress may act on the remand or not, at its discretion. Whichever is the case, if the bill isn’t returned to the court with remedies the court is satisfied with, the law is unconstitutional and must be struck down in its entirety.

This is highly unusual. Usually, when a law is struck, the court looks for the smallest chunk of it that can be struck (or “severed”). The problem here is that failing to meet the requirements in this clause affects the entire law. There is nothing severable. The lack of compliance taints the entire text. That’s why the whole law must be struck down. Now, nothing prevents Congress from having a do-over, but it would have been simpler to just enact the remedies and send it back to the court.