Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526152
label
Legislative Process, September 1968 (exact date unknown)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526152
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Legislative Process, September 1968 (exact date unknown)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526152
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-09-30
month
9
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-09-01
month
9
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
1426dc5120dd0c4a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D25, folder "Legislative Process, September
1968 (exact date unknown)" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech
File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D25 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
BALANCE IN GOVERNMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
An address by The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Representative from the Fifth District of Michigan
[SEPT. possible 1968
and Republican Minority Leader.
Ladies and gentlemen
In substantive remarks this evening, I will discuss four cornerstones
because Jam deoply
of our American political system and indicate my concern that each is in
some jeopardy in this crucial period in our
and
history.
may be other fundamental American political concepts principles that are
suffering from the serious erosion of an "imbalance in government, but will
These cornerstones four politicalogationare:
1. The system of "checks and balances" in the federal government,
or the division of responsibilities between the Executive, the
Legislative and the Judicial branches;
2. The relationship between the federal government and the 50
states;
3. The two-party system; and
4. The right of free speech and other related privileges and
responsibilities.
Each of these four cornerstones has contributed significantly to America's
freedom and progress. All but one are constitutionally ordained. Their
importance to the strength of our political fabric must not be underestimated.
The wide swing of political pendulums and public opinion, which oftentimes
creates an imbalance in government or in parts of it, must not destroy any one
of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal consti-
tution under the theory of separation of powers. In those deliberations in
Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they made an important decision to give
specific responsibilities to each branch of the national government
to
give each of them strength and authority but not superiority
over any one of the others. The finely tuned provisions in this historic document
were designed to be a lasting bulwark against the concentration of power in the
hands of one man, one group within our society or one segment of our government.
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably concerned
with concentrations of power and the tragic dangers that flow inevitably from
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
its misuse because most of them, or their forefathers, had fled from tyranny,
oppression and autocracy in Western Europe. They had suffered severe privation
and maximum danger to find and establish a new land of freedom. Therefore, in
the document for the governing of this newly-established nation there had to be
safeguards. Although it was obvious from their deliberations that we should have
a strong President heading the Executive branch, a strong Congress representing
the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court,
they made certain that in the document there were woven the essential checks
and balances predicated on three co-equal branches of the government.
judgment
oday we find an erosion of the power and prestige of the
legislative branch, a change of the intended direction of the Judiciary and an
awesome build-up of
power in the Executive arm.
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel with the story of David
and Goliath. Congress, the Legislative branch, is David. The Executive--the
White House and all its agencies--is Goliath.
On the side of David are 535 elected officials--100 Senators and 435
Representatives, with a comparatively small number of employees--representing
the American voters in each of the 50 states. The Legislative branch has a
relatively small operating budget compared with that of Goliath--the Executive
branch. Most importantly, however, those in the Congress regularly go to their
constituents for approval or rejection. Their "record" is put "on the line."
Each member is responsive to the views, the opinions of those "back home" they
represent.
In contrast, the Executive branch today has nearly 3 million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $22 billion. In addition,
there are about 3 million 300 thousand military personnel also under the
Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for those in uniform in the
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines approximates another $17.5 billion. The net
result--about 6 million 300 thousand employees under the Chief Executive-- a
12-month payroll of nearly $40 billion and a total federal budget to be spent
by them for this year of $136 billion.
This vast army of employees working in the Executive branch of the federal
government is really isolated and immunized from the American voter. Out of
(more)
-3-
the vast bureaucracy in the Executive branch only the President and the Vice
President put their records on the line at election time and then only once every
4 years.
There is a growing apprehension that there is a potential and real danger
in the burgeoning power of the federal government's Executive branch with all
this manpower and such vast funds. However, I have faith that the minds of many
of our people and the good judgment of Americans will cut down Goliath to proper
size by strengthening the power and prestige of the Congress. Balance in this
aspect of government will be restored.
I am pleased to report that the Congress itself is conscientiously, and I
believe constructively, working toward that end. Early in 1965 a Joint House-
Senate, bi-partisan committee was appointed to analyze our procedures, our
internal legislative structure, in fact, all aspects of the Legislative branch.
This study, these recommendations, should be most beneficial so that Congress
can and will do a better job--hopefully helping to re-establish its proper place
as a co-equal branch in our federal government.
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm vis-a-vis the
Judicial branch. It is my judgment that today the Judicial branch is to an
Cream
unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its way into spheres not intended at
the time the Constitution was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of "judicial restraint." I believe
he also soundly raised an arm of caution to the courts and suggested they might
wisely stay out of the "thicket" of political matters, relying in such cases on
the "ultimate sound judgment of the conscience of the veters." Quite frankly, I
favor a strong and firm attitude by our courts in those areas where their "arm"
can bring reason, order and respect for law to our system.
In retrospect is it fair to ask: "Have the Frankfurter words of caution
been wrong?"
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relationship
between our respective states and the national government. Those who met in
Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented sovereign states or
commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together a document for the new nation
that would permit the federal government to assume those responsibilities
essential for the national welfare such as the common defense, a postal system
(more)
-4-
and the like. Such powers were delegated, but to the sovereign states the
traditional role of local government was retained.
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role and these
responsibilities with a corresponding expansion of the influence of the federal
establishments. The shrinking potency of the states can be attributed in part
to archaic state constitutions, inadequate sources of revenue, and a lack of
dynamic and resourceful leadership at the state level. Whatever the cause, the
result has been a federal octopus moving steadily forward making vast inroads
into the functions initially carved out for your state and for mine. For example,
today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal funds controlled by
multiplying federal officials going directly to local communities. In many
instances these substantial federal arrangements also by-pass responsible local
authorities.
This new pattern for the extension of federal control is most vividly
illustrated by the President's poverty program, but there is a similar trend
developing in the area of primary and secondary education. Under legislation
enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education officials can, and undoubtedly
will, be by-passed as the federal authorities gradually extend their encroachment.
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans, are showing a
growing concern. During the consideration of the poverty legislation in 1965
thirty-seven Governors objected strenuously to the elimination of a provision in
the law that gave to our Governors some control and responsibility in the
administration of the vast sums allocated to their states for the attack on the
problems
There of poverty. LA a hopeful notes however.
are recognizing
to
itizens in many of our states appreciat) the need for the
modernizi their state constitutions to meet the needs rapidly growing
populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was supplanted by one that gives
new and better tools to elected state officials, In my travels this year to
forty
of
our
states,
I
found ageneral
realization that the state constitutions of the
past are not adequate for the solution of the problems of the future.
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability of a bigger
federal government and a lesser role for our states. Dynamic leadership, up-to-
date constitutions, sufficient local revenue, combined with a resolution to do
the job at home, in your state and mine, can stem the drive to federalize com-
pletely the republic.
(more)
-5-
A two-party system has been a bulwark of strength for freedom and progress
in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally ordained in our land,
but early in our history it was found to be the best way for most of our citizens
to participate in the political arena and to give expression to their political
philosophy. By having a two-party system we have avoided the loss of freedom
of one-party governments. There is no freedom in those one-party governments
behind the Iron Curtain. Furthermore, by having a two-party system we have
avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-party governments
stactly
our do twomajor notificialin
strength. Today we The Republican not Party nearly stellis trength t po partice.
medorityparty, repercussions/ This imbalance, Competition if permitted Butong between to exist two for major too political long- greps, a time parties will and Ruses have has been serious healthy for
theorutry.
for Americans just as competition in business and in the professions produces a
better result for all concerned.
Let me assure you that although I speak
for
the
minority,
the
Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or should sit back
and bide their time. There are some, a very few fortunately, who argue that the
minority party should await a national disaster at home or abroad and then move
in, pick up the pieces and build from the shambles. This I contend is neither
the tradition nor the heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was
not the role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We must by
the competence of our candidates, by the record of legislators and administrators
and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the respect of our fellow citizens.
that
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize under our
system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in its appeal and still
attract the majority of the electorate. The high ground of moderation with
unselfish unity is not only common horse sense for a political party--it is also
representative of the people and in keeping with the underlying genius of the
American political system.
With this format we aim to correct the imbalance in our two-party system.
We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition in the political arena so
that the cornerstone of two-party government will again function for a better
America.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right of free speech
with its many ramifications. I would do all possible to keep this priceless
(more)
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
-6-
"right" inviolate and to protect the right of those who wish to exercise this
privilege. Yes, we want the right of dissent and disagreement. We oppose a
monolithic society. We need, however, responsible dissent and an educational
dialogue between those with varying viewpoints.
The lacards of some demonstrators read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?
How many of us remember the similar questions raised by irresponsible
voices in Chamberlain's Britain, little over a quarter century ago: "Why Die
for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now--and many did then--that these voices were serving the purposes
of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace--while the seeds of
Buchenwald and Belsen were taking root.
Today, draft card burners and those who blockade shipments of military
supplies cry for peace-at-any-price--while the seeds of Communist atrocity take
root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
You and I are living in the most troubled of times.
America is badly shaken by deep divisions over national policy
Vietnam, the continuing civil rights revolution and its
concomitant black power movement, the role of the United States in a world
crackling with social upheaval in emerging nations, and the unceasing expansion
ist efforts of world communism.
We are witnessing a large variety of protest movements in this country as
Americans register their disagreement with public policy and rebellion against
the establishment.
I believe firmly in the right of dissent--but I feel we must distinguish
between responsible dissent and protest which produces violence and anarchy.
has
It is truly alarming that dissent in this country
empted rapidly
into -violence and symption of lifeand
property
building
For instance, some of those taking part in the massive anti-war demonstration
October 20, 1967, at the Pentagon showered both physical and verbal abuse on
the U.S. troops called in to keep order. The demonstration cost the taxpayers
more than $1 million when all the expenses were added up.
What of campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War? They have become
increasingly militant and disruptive--"lie-ins" in protest against recruitment
(more)
-7-
by the military, the CIA, and the manufacturer of napalm used in Vietnam.
Such "lie-ins" clearly violate the rights of others. Any student who
wishes to be interviewed by the military recruiters, the CIA, or chemical
company officials should be free to do so without interference from others.
I agree completely with the American Association of University Professors,
which recently condemned disruptive student behavior on campuses across the
Nation. Like the Association, I believe strongly in student democracy. But
disruptive student actions interfere with the search for knowledge and the
personal rights of others.
In a recent statement, the Association said: "To obstruct or restrain
other members of the academic community and campus visitors by physical force
is destructive of the pursuit of learning and of a free society."
It is vital that all Americans recognize the need for government by law
as well Lightey as the dissent. It is only with respect for law and adherence
to a government of laws that young Americans can properly assume the positions
of responsibility which await them.
The strength of Americans is great only if they couple it with discipline,
direct it to worthy goals and bind themselves to purposes that are larger than
any one person's ego and nobler than the common objectives of men.
To realize great achievements, a person must properly assess his or her own
value, assume full responsibility for all of his or her actions, and so live
that his or her conduct reflects love and respect for others.
I want to see Americans fight for their ideals and help clothe with truth
the pronouncement that "all men are created equal." May they beat injustice
to earth--but let them do so in reasoned defense of liberty and not in empty-
minded defiance of law and order.
If we are to have genuine progress in America, we must restore the rule of
law and build a good society. We must not make excuses for lawless behavior.
We must safeguard the rights of all Americans regardless of color. We must
enforce our laws against the mob and against criminal and subversive elements
operating behind a cloak of civil rights. We must attack and vanquish the misery
that flourishes in the ghetto and feeds the fires of disorder.
We should join hands to build America, not seek to tear her down. This is a
time for inspired effortaby from Americans of all ages, and especially the
(more)
-8-
young
a time for us to fashion a good society in which all Americans can
live in decency and dignity.
hut
P
I have talked as though actually, I am fearful apprehensive, and pessimistic.
a
very
Timited
excent.
On
the
other/haud,
I
am
optimistic
and let
me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith in the good judgment of the
American people. When alerted to dangers to their government they respond.
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir Winston
Churchill who said, "
democracy is the worst form of government except all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
There is an ever-growing realization that our system is the finest in the
history of mankind. We believe in our Constitution. Those wise men who put it
together almost 200 years ago created a historic document that has made it
possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow to a Nation of 50 states that
today is at the pinacle industrially, agriculturally, militarily and--more
importantly--spiritually.
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Franklin the day work
was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What have we got--a monarchy
or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A republic--if you can keep it!"
The responsibility for the American people then
as it is now
is
to keep our Republic
to keep it strong, progressive, free. We have in the
past; we will in the future. Thank you.
###
BERALD FORD LIBRARY