Uncategorized

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.

Aniya S. – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Common Interpretation:

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that powers not given to the national government are granted to the states and general public. It highlights the limited and enumerated powers of the national government, while reminding of the essential role that the states and people play in the constitutional republic. The Tenth Amendment illustrates the relationship between the federal and state governments by demarcating their respective authorities. The main purpose of incorporating the Tenth Amendment into the Bill of Rights was to warn the national government about inferring or assuming powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Historical Context:

The Tenth Amendment was also made due to the lack of restrictions on national government exercising unauthorized powers over the citizens and states in the original Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution found it pointless to include a Bill of Rights for an already limited government, and even found the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to be potentially dangerous. They believed a Bill of Rights would be useless and that its vagueness would leave room for misinterpretations of certain rights. Despite the concerns, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment showed that it did not change the nature of national government. Legal scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to clarify the limits of national government to the American citizens (at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). 

Matters of Debate:

One interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is that it adds nothing substantial to the Constitution, as it simply defines the concept of “federalism”. The Tenth Amendment is simply a truism. Similarly, one matter of debate is whether the Tenth Amendment should serve as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism. Another interpretation holds that the Tenth Amendment restores a degree of balancing the powers of federal and state governments, as the enumerated powers of national government are often misunderstood. In this way, the Tenth Amendment acts as a backdrop to the governing structures outlined in the Constitution, giving some legal scholars reason to say it has “constitutional value”. The Supreme Court case, Bond v. The United States illustrates the latter interpretation, as the Court unanimously agreed that Bond should not be charged under a federal statute that violates the powers reserved to the states (Pennsylvania). It was agreed that the federal statute was beyond the enumerated powers of the national government, and therefore a constitutionally invalid law. Bond had every right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute. 

Significance:

The Tenth Amendment bears some similarities to the themes of Rousseau’s Social Contract, which asserts a relationship between individual liberty and the liberty of the government. In the “social contract”, the government maintains political authority, but must respect the people. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment holds that the national government has its designated powers, but so do the states and people. That said, I find the second interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to be most persuasive because the Amendment defines the balance of powers between the national government and states. I believe the Tenth Amendment has no reason to be further amended when it fulfills its purpose of outlining federalism in the constitutional republic. In other words, it serves its purpose well

Amalia – The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was an agreement of the populous that there should be no federally established church. This decision was reached because before the revolution the Church of England was federally mandated in the southern colonies, while the northern colonies had their Puritan establishments. These different establishments bred dissenters, who were often punished for preaching without a license or refusing to pay taxes to a church they disagreed with. The topic of religion caused conflict in the years before the revolution, dividing the people of this new country instead of bringing them together under one previously imagined, now real, community and shared identity.

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights is commonly understood to have prohibited the government from establishing a state-mandated or federal religion for the nation, effectively separating church and state in the United States. 

This clause has been publicly understood to have separated the church and state in the United States, however many people have had interpretations of this clause as it regards government funding and government-sponsored prayer. Many of the matters of debate that spawn from this clause connect to religion and how it should interact with public education, all according to how the courts interpret the constitution. In relation to government funding, some argue the government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious institutions that provide education or other social services. Others argue that taxpayer funds shouldn’t be given to religious institutions if they might be used to further religious ideas because it violates the separation between church and state that the clause set in place. Through Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Board of Education v. Allen (1968) all students of religious schools gained access to transportation and textbook funds. As well, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) deemed it unconstitutional under free speech and free exercise principles to exclude otherwise eligible recipients from government assistance because their activity is religious in nature. On the topic of government-sanctioned prayer the courts determined it unconstitutional for public schools to lead students in religious activities, even voluntary in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). These decisions, though controversial to much of the public, were not to the Justices: it would have been seen as government sponsored religion which goes against the Establishment Clause’s separation between church and state.

The Establishment Clause protects citizens rights to practicing their religion freely, without persecution, also ensuring that the government of the United States isn’t biased towards certain religions. This clause ensures that the obligatory religion that the colonists experienced under the monarchy could not happen in their new nation. The Establishment Clause also protects those facing religious persecution. With religious tolerance being written as an amendment to the Constitution, America became a place of refuge for those experiencing religious oppression; many Jewish people in the early 20th century who fled pogroms (planned massacres of Jewish people in eastern Europe) were able to make a safe life for themselves and their families in the United States. The religious tolerance that the Establishment Clause implemented has had a long lasting impact on the peoples and cultures that make up America to this day as well as how cases pertaining to religion are handled in federal Courts.

Amendment VII—Ela Roso

Video

Written Component

Representation was an important matter during the Revolutionary War. Prior to the conflict, colonists did not have any representatives in the British Parliament. One thing they did have, however, was participation in colonial civil juries. Juries became a way for the colonial population to block unpopular British laws and have a say in colonial laws. After the war, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed that would guarantee the right to a civil jury. Supporters of the proposal believed that it would cement the civil jury as another form of representation for the people and protect them in court from tyrannical laws and corrupt judges. This proposal became the Seventh Amendment.

The main clause of the Seventh Amendment is the first one, which states the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. This means that in civil cases, such as lawsuits and accidents, with the exception of exceedingly minor civil cases, the trial has the guarantee of presiding jury instead of just a judge deciding on the case. The civil cases the amendment covers do not include equity cases; additionally, the Seventh Amendment refers to trials on a federal level, not a state one. In deciding which cases require a civil jury, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment is based on the general meaning of the English common law jury trials of 1791. 

One divergence of interpretation when it comes to the Seventh Amendment is the English laws’ use and relevance in the modern day. The jurisdiction of juries in civil court has shifted in the centuries since the ratification of the Seventh Amendment. Gradually, the Supreme Court has granted more cases to judges instead of juries, as well as new powers, such as the ability to dismiss a jury-led trial due to insufficient evidence at any time. In the English courts, these powers did not exist. This illustrates one side of the debate: that the English common law is no longer relevant, and thus should not decide the right to civil jury. The disagreement against this claim stems from the original justifications of the amendment: the right to a civil jury is an important method of guarding the jury’s authority and preventing a corrupt judge. This is especially important due to the civil jury not having the ability to protect its own power. The fear is that without the civil jury right the government will continue to take rights away from the jury and give them to judges, thus transferring power away from the public and towards an individual. The debate over the English laws’ relevance in deciding civil juries is still in contention today.

The Seventh Amendment relates heavily to Rousseau and Locke’s Enlightenment-era idea of power to the people. The Seventh Amendment and the importance of the civil jury trial reflect the fears of revolutionaries after the Revolutionary War of having a corrupt president. Just as many of the president’s powers were restricted via the Congress in order to prevent a repeat of the English king’s tyranny, the jury of many prevents the abuse of power of one judge. This justification still has weight in the modern day. As legislation in the United States is increasingly decided by wealthy individuals with the backing of a political party, it is important for the public to have a say in politics and the nation’s laws beyond a vote in an election. The right to a civil jury and the Seventh Amendment continues to be a relevant and important amendment to the Constitution today.

Amendment V – The Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The right to due process clause of the Fifth amendment in the Constitution guarantees that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without undergoing due process of law. This clause originated in a desire to protect individuals from excessive governmental power and secure fundamental rights. American colonists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, and property seizures without a fair trial under British rule. Evidence of their discontent under British rule is evident in situations such as the Shaysite Grievances. The clause was a response to the oppressive practices of British rule and a reflection of the belief that no one should be forced to incriminate themselves or suffer without proper legal procedures.

 

The clause states that individuals have the right to a fair trial in a court of law, a defense attorney, and freedom from self-incrimination. This is known as procedural due process. The concept of “life, liberty, and property” in the clause connects to our discussions of ideas that originated from the Enlightenment. It had many thinkers who argued that people have unalienable rights, including John Locke, responsible for “The Second Treatise of Government”, where the quote “life, liberty, and possession” can be seen. He argued that these were basic human rights, and his words heavily influenced colonists to rebel against British rule. They were thus integrated into the documents that were made when the nation was founded, such as the Constitution.

 

However, there has been controversy to what extent the justice department can exercise the overturning of laws. This is where a term called “substantive due process” arises. It is a legal argument that attempts to interpret how much the due process clause of the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the text. The clause implies that the government cannot infringe on the rights of life, liberty, or property, even if no specific provision explicitly defines those terms. They recognize that individuals possess inherent rights that are fundamental to their liberty, such as the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and freedom of expression. However, it has been a subject of controversy, since some argue that it grants too little power to the judiciary branch. Others argue that substantive due process is essential in ensuring that the government does not restrict fundamental rights. The divergent interpretations revolve around the extent of due process protections, particularly concerning balance between individual rights and societal interests. 

 

A case that is illustrative of the tensions around substantive due process is Roe V Wade. Recently, the case has been a controversial discussion regarding the right to abortion. This is where substantive due process becomes a significant basis for the argument that there is a fundamental right to privacy that the government should not have the authority to restrict.  In 1973, it was decided that privacy encompasses a woman’s right to have an abortion based on these principles. The case has arisen again after the ruling was overturned, but this clause is still a justification that women have a right to bodily autonomy. 

 

At present, this clause does not require amending, because it ensures that everyone is granted a fair trial with an impartial jury and a defense attorney. Altering a clause that has historically protected so many from having their rights limited by excessive governmental control could be detrimental to the concept of the Fifth amendment itself. 

Alex – The Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Context

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Eighth Amendment states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The history of the ideas in this clause can be traced back to even before the Articles of Confederation were written; in 1689, the British government adopted a bill of rights that included protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The original United States Constitution did not offer the same protection, instead giving the federal government the power to create federal crimes and punish perpetrators. However, many opponents of the Constitution expressed the fear that giving Congress this power would eventually lead to corruption and the use of punishment as a method of oppression. As such, the Constitution was amended to include protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

Common Interpretation

As suggested by its title, the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress from imposing unjustifiably harsh punishments on criminal defendants. This protection can be divided into two categories: cruel and unusual punishment, which refers to penalties that involve unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering, and disproportionate punishment, which refers to penalties that are disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed. “Cruel and unusual punishments” are commonly interpreted as punishments that are fundamentally barbaric or lack a legitimate penological purpose; these are the types of punishments that would violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the courts’ definition of what constitutes excessive barbarism has shifted throughout the time since the Eighth Amendment was ratified.

 

Matters for Debate

The vague language of the Eighth Amendment has allowed for certain debates to consistently surface in contemporary discussions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. One of these debates questions what the current standard is for determining if a punishment is barbaric enough to violate the Eighth Amendment—whether the most important consideration is what was accepted when the Amendment was ratified in 1791, current public opinion, or the subjective morality of the courts. One progressive argument relies on the concept of “evolving standards of decency,” which asserts that the Court should consider contemporary shifts in societal attitudes and public opinion, rather than the originally intended meanings of America’s Founding Fathers. However, another prominent argument is that a punishment can be judged by its length of practice; essentially, a punishment deemed acceptable by multiple generations of Americans is still Constitutional until it falls out of practice for multiple generations, at which point it can be labeled cruel and unusual.  

 

Significance

Some of the ideas in the Constitution, but particularly in the Eighth Amendment, reflect ideas expressed by John Locke in his writing. Locke asserted that individuals possess certain inalienable rights, and that the primary purpose of the government is to protect these rights. As such, he proposed a separation of powers in order to ensure no one branch of government becomes too powerful and threatens individual liberty. This is, in essence, the goal of the Eighth Amendment: to ensure the federal government does not have enough power to oppress individuals through cruel and unusual punishment.

The 9th Amendment

Video

Written Component

 

The context that gives rise to the 9th amendment is the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution. The anti-federalists were adamant that the bill of rights be included in the constitution because if it wasn’t, the central government would have too much power. The Federalists did not want a bill of rights because they felt that every liberty could not be written and it was best to trust the government to protect the people’s liberties. The bill of rights was a list of rights that James Madison created in 1791, that lists freedoms like the first amendment. The founding father took the federalists and anti-federalists views into account when creating the 9th amendment as it was a compromise. The bill of rights was included in the constitution but the 9th amendment was created which made both parties content as the anti-federalists got a list of specific rights the federal government can’t deny them while the federalists got reassurance that natural rights would be protected. This leads to the common interpretation of the law, which is that the fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the constitution are protected under this law. The 9th amendment safeguards against the narrowing of rights by the government by ensuring that the individual liberties that are fundamental to society are protected.

The 9th amendment is very clear and nobody argues about the fact that laws that are fundamental that are not enumerated are protected. Recent discussion has arisen because of the question, “Which rights are fundamental?” There are a couple of different views on what the 9th amendment is supposed to protect. In the literalist interpretation of justice, Samuel Alito, only the rights “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, along with several other important liberties, does not fall under the 9th’s protection with this interpretation. The progressive view of the 9th amendment is that it includes “individual privacy and personal autonomy.” These differences in interpreting what law is fundamental has led to some of the most famous court cases as in Roe vs Wade, three justices said that the 9th amendment justified their decision to side with Roe as they interpreted the right to an abortion was protected by the 9th amendment? This wasn’t the first the 9th amendment had been utilized in the court of law as in Griswold vs Connecticut. The right to buy contraceptives while married was deemed as protected by the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment correlates directly to the debate we had in class about whether to include the bill of rights in the constitution or leave it out. The inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution was one of the main reasons the federalists and anti-federalist could not ratify the constitution. The 9th amendment solved that problem. The 9th amendment connects to the broader theme of the struggle between the power of the nation government and the people. The power struggle takes place throughout most all the constitution as the two main parties, the federalists and anti-federalists, compromised in the constitution’s drafting. Recently, I have leaned towards the progressive view of the 9th amendment as I view it as fundamental that laws that are necessary to society are protected. One change I would include in this amendment is the addition of laws that are deemed fundamental because it gives a starting point for future court cases that interpret if laws are fundamental and protected by the 9th amendment, or if they are not.

Roe V. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases. Last modified September 28, 2022.

     Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/

     research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Ava – Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

The historical forces giving rise to this excerpt of text likely are the framers of the Constitution’s consideration of different political ideas. Looking back, especially on the Revolutionary War, the Americans remembered what tyranny could be like, and they wanted to be sure that the accusation of treason wasn’t simply something used to silence people with plans that could help America develop into a more experienced and peaceful nation.

The commonly understood meaning of Article III, section III beyond the obvious ‘don’t commit treason’ is that the United States discourages treason charges being thrown around, so an accuser needs two witnesses with testimonials or a full confession. Also, Congress is essentially in charge of deciding punishments for treason. However, the punishment should not extend beyond the accused to their family, or last longer than the accused lives.

This particular provision has been interpreted in separate ways involving, firstly, the modern impact of treason. There have been barely any people accused of treason for a long time because of the specifications in the Constitution and the qualifications of the legitimate charge of treason. However, sometimes people are convicted of similar crimes, such as espionage, and still handled like a treason case, even going as far as to call the accused a traitor.

This is important especially considering the way the treason clause was written to add some protection, and so going away from the formal accusation of treason removes any of the padding that was originally included in the Constitution. A supreme court case at the center of this small dispute is Rosenberg v. United States, which involves Julius and Ethel Rosenberg being accused of espionage and not treason. However, even though the charge was espionage, the judge and prosecutors essentially combined the charges, informally suggesting that the Rosenbergs had committed treason.

The Rosenbergs’ case became known when they began to insist that this was a violation of the Constitution because they were essentially facing the consequences of treason without any of the specifications of the Constitution. This is illustrative of the debate of the legitimacy of treason as a charge and surrounding rules because it brings up why the framers of the Constitution may have included every word they chose to write about the legal punishments for treason. This provision connects to other concepts discussed this year mainly in the Enlightenment with philosophers.

Mainly, the center of this section is John Locke in his ideas of a person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. This section gets into exactly what the punishment should be, and who should decide, ensuring that no one’s right to liberty or property is denied beyond a reasonable point, so that the punishment is fair and fit to the crime itself. I find the treason clause to still be very relevant and its mention of heredity and forfeiture is very persuasive and important. 

Aaron – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Tenth Amendment establishes the boundaries for the power relationship between the states and the federal government. It was added to the Constitution as a mechanism for keeping the federal government in check by allotting most of the power to enact laws in the hands of each state, a system known as federalism. Today, federalism allows diverse political, cultural, and ideological views to be expressed differently based on the preference of the voters in each state. This system also has its downsides, even when most Americans agree on certain issues, the federal government has no way of enforcing these ideas onto states with opposing views.

Due to the tensions between the state and the federal government, this amendment has been the focus of numerous court cases that have more clearly defined the relationship between the state and federal government. For instance, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was a precedent that showed that the federal government has more power than once thought inside states. The case concerned a Kansas farmer who had produced a surplus of wheat. His wheat was ruled to be a subject of the commerce clause. The court’s decision for this was based on the fact that his surplus was able to influence the price of wheat elsewhere and therefore needed to be regulated under the clause. This clause was originally meant for the federal government to be a mediator in inter-state commerce but resulted in the federal government claiming that every transaction of commerce-related issues could be regulated by them. This interpretation of the Tenth Amendment vastly expanded the boundaries in which the federal government had power as they now were able to regulate almost all commerce.

Recently, judges have started to revert to a more limited central government. The overturning of Roe v. Wade (2022) set a precedent that state and local governments decide all public health issues. Additionally, another very important case with modern applications is Printz v. United States (1997). In this case, the supreme court used the Constitution’s “anti-commandeering” clauses to rule in favor of states’ rights to not enforce federal laws. 

The majority of the time the Tenth Amendment protects people from a super-powerful central government. On the flip side, however, it has also allowed many states to continue to promote things such as racial inequality. During this time the federal government sometimes couldn’t implement laws promoting racial equality in states even when the majority of Americans were in favor of racial equality. This is because the power to regulate these types of laws was given to the state by the Tenth Amendment.

To summarize, the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has varied dramatically, but it has always set the boundaries between the state and federal governments. Although the Tenth Amendment has not always been used to do good things, it continues to protect people from an all-powerful government and it allows for the diverse views of the people in different states to be expressed.

Sophie Saxl- The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

Sophie Saxl

Constitution Project Write- Up: The Due Process Clause

6/2/23

 

The Magna Carta, a charter of rights issued in 1215 by King John of England, introduces the concept of due process in its 39th chapter, stating that no free man should be taken under arrest without a fair judgment by his peers. Due process sets an important standard of fairness and a just protection of all parties in legal proceedings. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in the U.S. Constitution ensures the right to a fair, thorough, and lawfully judged legal and administrative process to every person in court.

There are two aspects of the Due Process Clause: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process is the right to decisions involving the government being made through a fair and impartial process which includes fair notice, the opportunity to be heard and a fair presentation and examination of evidence for all parties. It is widely supported and uncontroversial. Substantive due process is much more debated, as it puts more limits on governmental authority, allowing courts to protect certain fundamental rights relating to “life, liberty and property,” as the Fifth Amendment states. Supporters of the theory of substantive due process often claim that it is the best way to protect fundamental human rights, including those not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Legal scholars against the theory argue that the concept upsets the balance of power specifically outlined between the branches of the U.S. government, giving an unwarranted amount of power to the courts. This argument also asserts that substantive due process would give courts unlimited power of review over what rights are to be protected. This argument is based on the idea that the only rights protected are those stated in the Constitution. 

Due process is frequently brought up in Supreme Court cases, with one early example being in the extremely controversial Lochner vs. New York. In this case, a bakery owner, Joseph Lochner, was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act, a law setting a maximum of 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week allowed to be worked by bakery employees. Lochner argued that due process should be interpreted to contain freedom of contract covered by substantive due process. Even though Lochner referenced the Due Process Clause applying to states in the Fourteenth Amendment, he uses the same conceptual argument that applies to the Fifth Amendment. While Lochner was later overturned, substantive due process has continued to be debated in privacy cases.

The Due Process Clause is a manifestation of a crucial enlightenment ideal: natural rights. John Locke’s ideas on natural rights hold a close connection to the Due Process Clause, down to the specific wording. In his “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” Locke asserts that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions,” using nearly identical wording to the clause itself: “life, liberty, and property.”

The argument around substantive due process draws back to a central point of debate in interpreting the Constitution: should judgment be based on the intent of the framers, or on the relevance today? I believe that the Constitution can only be read as a document made to change with time, because the Constitution is adaptable to different times, as proven by the built-in amendment process outlined in the Constitution.