Uncategorized

Angelina Chu – Article 3, Section 1 (Judicial Branch)

Video

Written Component

Some framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government could not be successful without a judicial system to enforce such laws. This is rooted in the issues of the Articles of Confederation (1777) due to a weak central government, leading to a lack of unity among the states. One of the main flaws of the Articles was that it failed to enforce the laws that it preached. The Constitution strives to instill the unity that the Articles lacked by enforcing its unifying principles through the judicial system.
The judicial system is one of the three branches of the United States government. The common interpretation of Article 3 is that it unifies the states under one judicial system and Supreme Court.

In particular, Section 1 of Article 3 establishes this Supreme Court as the highest court in the judicial system, with inferior courts established by Congress when necessary. It also strives to enforce the integrity of the judicial system by stating that judges may keep such positions for the rest of their lives as long as they maintain “good behavior.” By instilling the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, Section 1 grants judges the ability to interpret the law. This strengthens the federal government as the Judicial branch can review governmental affairs, helping to check and balance the other two branches of government.


Although this interpretation of Article 3, Section 1 may be common, historical scholars have diverged in their understandings of the section. In Not Your Founding Fathers’ Judiciary, scholar David A. Strauss argues that the judicial system does not function in the way the founding fathers intended, with state courts taking on more importance than the Supreme Court. Although Section 1 puts emphasis on how the states are united under one Supreme Court, Strauss conveys that with the increasing number of crimes today, most cases do not have a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, with justice being carried out in state courts instead. On the other hand, academic Richard W. Garnett conveyed his argument in the article The “Judicial Power” and the Power of Judicial Review where he expresses the importance of judicial review, the court’s power to interpret and enforce the law.

Through its ability to deem governmental actions constitutional, Garnett presents that the judicial branch checks and balances the Executive and Legislative branches and thereby upholds the Constitution. The importance of judicial review is also demonstrated in Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, legitimatizing the Supreme Court’s right to rule laws as constitutional.
As Garnett highlights, Section 1’s establishment of the Supreme Court and judicial review helps to check and balance the other branches of the government.

This idea can be traced back to Montesquieu’s Enlightenment philosophy of the separation of powers. As Montesquieu details in his 1748 work, The Spirit of Laws, he proposes that the government must not be concentrated and instead split up into separate branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to check and balance the others, preventing tyranny and abuse of power. Article 3, the judicial branch, plays an imperative role in carrying out the separation of powers, upholding the integrity of the Constitution. Although the judicial system is a necessity to the Constitution, one possible amendment would be to classify “good behavior.” As behaving without “good behavior” is the only condition under which a judge would no longer be deemed fit for the job, defining what such behavior is would warrant that all judges are held to a specific, uniform standard and therefore ensure the Constitution’s integrity.

Sophie Kim-Yatter: Article V

Video

Written Component

Article V of the US Constitution proposes the amendment process. This was a vital part of the Constitution because people likely would have hated being unable to change the ways of the government and society in any way, especially as time progressed.

Despite not yet being used, the convention method for amendments was an essential part to the original Constitution. The drafters recognized that the congressional method was controlled completely by the federal government; therefore, it could not be relied on to keep the federal government in check. Thus, the convention method was included as it largely bypasses the federal government, which demonstrates more appeal to anti-federalists, who would have been against complete federal government power. 

Two main parts compose Article V. First the methods of amendment are presented, the first being congressional proposal, and the second being by convention. For the first, if ⅔ of each house of congress approves the proposed amendment, it then gets sent to the states. ¾ of the states must ratify the amendment in order to be added to the Constitution. The second method is the convention method, where if ⅔ of the states agree, a convention is called for proposing amendments. Once an amendment is developed and approved by the convention, it is then sent back to the states, where, as with the first method, ¾ of the states must ratify. The second part to this article discusses the two ways an amendment can be ratified, chosen by congress. Either state legislatures decide or states can call for a convention to decide whether or not to ratify. 

The first of two major matters of debate argues that amendments are not the most successful way to implement constitutional change. Backed up with evidence of specific amendments and bills, it is clear that the change amendments propose materializes despite ratification or lack thereof. The second matter of debate is that people are not following the Constitution by its original meaning (originalism). “Originalists,” per se, believe that all the problems with the amendment process, specifically discussing bias towards federal government and difficulty enacting amendments, would be eliminated if everyone stuck to the “original” meaning of the Constitution. 

The first matter of debate is the more persuasive of the two. I feel that the first had much more detailed evidence to prove its claim, mentioning several specific amendments and acts that support. The originalism claim (2) provides decent reasoning, but in the end, the point itself was not strong enough. It states that if the original meaning of the Constitution was followed, major problems would be solved. But it is highly unlikely that this would actually eliminate these issues, as more problems are likely to stem from this other “original” interpretation. 

The supreme court case of Coleman v. Miller discussed Article V, where Coleman’s side argued that a state can not ratify an amendment after an unreasonable amount of time has passed, nor if they had already rejected the amendment, both of which were done by the Kansas state legislature. The final decision of the case deemed that there is nothing in Article V that prevents ratification after rejection, nor does an amendment lose vitality over time. 

Based on the Coleman v. Miller case, along with matters of debate, Article V clearly has issues with specificity. I believe that it would be beneficial to amend this article in order to include more details about uncertainties, such as how long an amendment may remain active for, in order to avoid further confusion regarding this essential section of the Constitution. 

Amendment 5 – Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The historical forces and motivation behind the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause largely consisted of fears of conviction without trial and the stripping of life, liberty, and property without proper processes, and a desire to prevent such events. It was largely derived from the Magna Carta, a statement of rights issued in 11th Century England that ensured no citizen would be imprisoned or arrested unless it was in accordance with a law or by means of peers’ judgment. The response may also be attributed to British violations of due process in regard to juries when America was a colony.

The common interpretation of the Due Process Clause is that it ensures the government abides by the laws. The clause aims to ensure no person’s life, liberty, and property are struck without the due process of law. It also includes procedural due process, which refers to procedures surrounding the processes of law, and has been interpreted to refer to substantive due process, which sets substantive limits to prevent the government from removing certain freedoms. 

John C. Harrison utilizes an historical interpretation of the Constitution to argue that the clause is  a reiteration of the separation of powers and it lacks support for substantive due process due to the vagueness of the language. It is a statement that only the Courts are equipped to deprive life, liberty, and property, not the Executive or Legislative Branches. He also believes the clause reiterates the provision that the government must follow the law, similarly to how the Magna Carta provides that the King must follow the laws. 

Roger A. Fairfax believes that the clause addresses both the availability and equity of procedures and informs what the government may necessitate or forbid. His main argument centers around the vagueness doctrine of the clause as an important, but overlooked asset in addition to substantive and procedural due process. For evidence, he cites the Johnson v. United States (2015) Supreme Court decision to illustrate the power of the vagueness doctrine. Given that fair notice is required by means of the Due Process Clause, the Court concluded that the term “violent felony” did not provide ample fair notice to all defendants as to sentences they may face due to the vagueness of the provision. At the end of the essay, he argues that the prohibition of vagueness places a lid on governmental action, which is exactly what substantive due process strives to do. 

Fairfax’s argument is more persuasive for three reasons. Firstly, he uses a specific case as evidence, which Harrison does not. Secondly, Harrison’s argument that the clause is a part of the separation of powers is ineffective due to the fact that it would be redundant given other measures in the Constitution. This is not likely given the Framers’ close examination and heated debate of the Constitution. Thirdly, Harrison’s argument that the clause does not support substantive due process due to its vagueness is countered by the premise of fair notice. While not explicitly stated, the clause is widely understood to include fair notice, which leads one to apply the same principle to substantive due process despite the lack of explicit statement.

The Third Amendment – Emmy Casselman

Video

Written Component

The Third Amendment addresses the issue of involuntary quartering of British soldiers in the American colonies during times of war and peace, which limits the federal government’s ability to use private homes as housing for soldiers. Before this law was created, the Quartering Acts allowed for British soldiers to stay in the colonists homes, without the consent of the owner. Not only were the owners required to shelter the soldiers, but they had to provide food, bedding, beer, eating utensils, and much more, which was very invasive and destroyed the homes of the colonsists.

Since Britain was in debt, the British could not afford to house their soldiers themselves, so they put the burden and expense on the Americans, who were the enemies. The colonists felt that housing British soldiers without their permission was an invasion of privacy by the government and violated the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Eventually in 1766, the colonists refused to house the soldiers, forcing them to remain on the ships they arrived on, and later when the Bill of Rights was being written, made sure to include the subject of quartering soldiers, as they hoped housing their enemies would end. The Third Amendment does not have much direct Constitutional relevance at present.

Even though the federal government would never ask people to house soldiers today, there are some modern implications. It suggests that people have the right to domestic privacy and that they are not subject to home invasion by the government or soldiers, even in times of war. It is also the only part of the Constitution that addresses the relationship between civilians and soldiers, and this in particular emphasizes the control the people have over armed forces. Although this Amendment was important, just like all the others, there are not many Supreme Court cases that cite the Third Amendment. The lack of judicial interpretation may be because of the straightforward phrasing.

One of the few Supreme Court cases that mentions the Third Amendment is Griswold v. Connecticut, a case involving the constitutional right to contraception. It uses the Third Amendment as one of several constitutional guarantees with “penumbras” that “create zones of privacy.” Furthermore, in Katz v. Connecticut, in concern of a “search” or “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court noted the Third Amendment as “another aspect of privacy from governmental intrusion.” In Engblom v. Carey, the only court case to examine the Third Amendment in depth, discussed whether or not the state of New York violated correction officers’ Third Amendment rights when it used their state-owned residences without their consent to house New York National Guards.

As said before, although people today would not be asked to quarter soldiers, the fact that people have the right to privacy in their homes is very modern. Just like the Enlightenment thinkers, this idea was new and one people liked, especially in a time where America was trying to become independent from Britain. The enlightenment thoughts on quartering soldiers led to the American Revolution, and eventually, their freedom. 

Fourth Amendment

Video

Written Component

 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines the powers of the police to search and seize the property of citizens. At the time of its ratification, December 15, 1791, two forms of search in the colonies and England infringed on people’s privacy. In England, “general warrants” allowed royal officials to search a person’s belongings upon suspicion of political opposition. In the colonies, “writs of assistance” allowed customhouse officers, sheriffs, constables, and other officials to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment limits government power to seize and search people, their property, and their homes. Some cases require warrants to conduct searches, while probable cause is enough for others. To obtain a warrant, the government must show probable cause—a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity—to justify the search. 

The Palmer Raids of 1920 are an example of how the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in divergent ways. After the Russian Revolution, which establish a communist state, Americans feared a similar domestic revolution. The Red Scare, lasting from 1970 to 1920, was a widespread fear of immigrants creating a rise in anarchism, communism, and radical leftist ideologies. To reduce the number of immigrants, the U.S. Department of Justice, led by A. Mitchell Palmer, conducted a series of arrests known as the Palmer Raids. Those detained were suspected of sympathizing with communists or anarchists. Many immigrants, merely speaking with an accent, were arrested, surpassing the number of warrants issued. The arrests were lawful, the department argued, because the suspects supported overthrowing the government. Prominent lawyers and legal scholars argued that the arrests were unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Ernst Freund, and Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound wrote that the Department lacked warrants, allowed officers to use unrestrained force, and  seize documents at will.

The Fourth Amendment states what cannot happen in cases of search and seizure, but not what will happen if it is violated. The 1920s Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States court case illustrates how the Fourth Amendment has been breached, then debated. Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes, so Federal officers searched the company’s office and copied various documents “without a shadow of authority” said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The court’s ruling held that illegally copied evidence was tainted, so the government couldn’t use it to frame a new indictment or prosecute. This is the exclusionary rule, prohibiting evidence unconstitutionally obtained to be used in court. If tainted evidence were allowed, Holmes’s ruling held, the police would attempt to find ways around the Fourth Amendment. The case illustrates how the parameters of the Fourth Amendment have been expanded and reinterpreted since its ratification.

The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with the requirement of warrants based on probable cause, exemplifies the Founding Father’s commitment to limiting the power of the government and protecting individual rights. This relates to Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers, which heavily influenced the U.S. Constitution. Montesquieu advocated for a system of checks and balances, where power is divided among several branches. This aimed to prevent a single individual or group from gaining too much power, which would protect the rights of the people. I find Justice Holmes’s interpretation persuasive and believe that while the amendment does not need change, fairly recent cases before the Supreme Court involving police searching vehicles without warrants have undermined this right. So perhaps there must be changes made to further enforce the fourth amendment. 


Works Cited

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Writ of Assistance.” In

    Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last modified February 28, 2020.

     https://www.britannica.com/topic/writ-of-assistance.

Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. “Silverthorne Lumber Co. V. United

     States 251 U.S. 385 (1920).” In Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.

     Last modified may 25, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/

     encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/

     Silverthorne-lumber-co-v-united-states-251-us-385-1920.  

Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr. “The Fourth Amendment.” In National Constitution

     Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/

     amendment-iv/interpretations/121. 

 

Leila Grey – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment was initially enforced because the American public was searching for a new normal after the American Revolution. During this time, anti-federalists were scared of having another oppressive government. The federalists believed that by allowing people to have guns, it would begin to lessen the amount of power the government had over people by giving them weapons to defend themselves. The common understanding of this amendment was that militias, made up of working class citizens, were able to have weapons solely for defensive purposes. Along with this, the militias were given limited military training to ensure their ability to defend themselves and others. Originally, the Second Amendment was only applied to the federal government and each individual state could come up with their own regulations regarding firearms and weapons. This later became a large debate about whether the federal or state government should be in charge of gun bans and mandates in each state.   

There have been many debates about the Second Amendment starting with the United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The United States v. Cruikshank case argued that the federal government should not have authority over the individual states opinions on guns. There have also been differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have guns without regulations and that when the amendment was placed, they had people checking and inspecting guns before and after they were purchased. He also states that the founders aimed for this amendment to ensure safety from a possible tyrannical government or invaders. However, in 2008 the case of District of Columbia v. Heller took place. Heller argued that the handgun regulations in D.C went against their individual constitutional right to be able to carry guns for self defense. The other side of this debate argued that the Second Amendment only defends a small individual right and it should be inferred that there would be state mandates in areas with high crime rates. This case is important because it was the first court case to address whether the right to bear arms applied to an individual or if it was intended only for state militias.   

I found that the D.C. side of the District of Columbia v. Heller case was more persuasive because Heller argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia, however, the amendment clearly states that when referencing a free state, an orderly militia is given the right to carry guns, not the individual. Even though the people who form a militia are not appointed the title of being a soldier, they are meant to defend their community if necessary. Since many states within the nation have advocated for the right to carry firearms, in those states there should be more regulations that explicitly state where guns will be allowed along with having those rules more heavily enforced. In addition to heavier mandates, there should also be background checks for people who want to buy guns to scan for any compromising factors, like a mental illness or previous criminal activity, that could lead to extreme violence or dangers.   

The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is generally known as the Guarantee Clause because it guarantees a republican form of government, generally known to be a government run by the people through elections. The clause also ensures the federal government’s protection of states against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, but this is not its primary function as this power is already conferred elsewhere in the Constitution.

Crucially, the guarantee of a republican form of government is commonly understood to require majority rule for all individual states. This correlation between a republican government and majority rule is expressed in Federalist No. 57, which says that “[t]he elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government”, indicating that majority rule is a necessary component of any form of republican government. Hence, this clause limits the type of government a state may have by preventing any state from imposing any type of monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through a majority vote. Instead, the Guarantee Clause requires a government created by majority election. 

Although the clause requires each state to have a republican form of government, it importantly does not speak to the details of that government, explicitly leaving state legislatures to decide voting qualifications (Article I, Sections 2 & 4). The Guarantee Clause was created because delegates of the Constitutional Convention feared a monarchy arising in a particular state and establishing tyranny over the entire US.

However, the Framers’ decision to leave the voting qualifications up to the states has resulted in considerable debate over whether or not the federal government has consistently guaranteed majority rule in the states. Some legal scholars believe that the US’s acceptance of the disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after Reconstruction was a failure to uphold the Guarantee Clause. After the Civil War, African Americans were a majority of the population in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, and 40 percent or more in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. However, African Americans were systematically disenfranchised, particularly in places where they were majorities.

The tension of balancing minority rule while maintaining a republican form of government was on display in the 1896 Mississippi Supreme Court case, Ratliff v. Beale. In this case, the court explained that after the civil war, Mississippi’s government was in a period in which the government was controlled primarily by recently enfranchised Blacks, and then, through a white uprising, moved into being controlled and administered by the white minority overseeing a Black majority. In this case, the court attempts to justify this contradictory governmental structure by denouncing the African Americans as “unfitted by educational experience for the responsibility thrust upon [them].”

Though states are allowed to change voting qualifications by the Constitution, some legal historians believe that the Guarantee Clause does not allow states to instate minority rule, making the disenfranchisement of African Americans unconstitutional. 

I would advocate for an amendment to the Guarantee Clause to make it more robust and direct. As this clause has not been particularly debated within the Supreme Court, my amendment would aim to improve the effectiveness of the Guarantee Clause rather than absolve states concerns. I would amend the clause to clarify the criteria for what constitutes a “republican form of government” and provide more guidance on the powers and limitations of the federal government in guaranteeing and maintaining republican government in states. This amendment would prevent cases like Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912) from succeeding in permitting various forms of direct democracy permitted by state law.

The Supreme Court refused to invalidate these governments on the grounds that they did not violate the Guarantee Clause. A more precise amendment would make these distinctions more clear. As well as changing the rulings on these types of cases, a clarified version of the Guarantee Clause would have perhaps limited or even prevented the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after the Civil War. The disenfranchisement of African Americans after the Civil War had long-lasting consequences, perpetuating racial inequality, political exclusion, economic disadvantages, and systemic racism in the United States. 

Dean Gans – 1st Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and nearly 3 years after, the first amendment was passed. One of the provisions within the First Amendment was the crucial clause declaring that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This addition to the Constitution was influenced by major Enlightenment principles. Many thinkers of the Enlightenment, like John Locke,  strongly believed that having freedom of speech without infringement of the government would further develop society because without interference from the government social progression would occur because of society being able to openly debate over social injustices.

Then, because of their democratic governmental system, they would be able to implement the outcomes of these debates into the government. The Freedom of speech clause could be seen as responding to their previous rulers Britain. Because of different taxation and America not receiving representation, they felt their government was flawed but they were heavily restricted from advocating those opinions By heavily restricting the government from being able to interfere with criticism toward the government, the framers of the Constitution could have been trying to protect America’s government from the same corruption the British monarchy had. 

The freedom of speech clause is commonly interpreted as allowing speech unless it incites or influences imminent violence, preventing the government from restricting anyone’s speech. Only the government is prohibited from denying freedom of speech. In certain circumstances, such as with private employers or principals, someone may be terminated or expelled due to their speech if there is a valid reason. Additionally, speech extends beyond verbal communication and includes signs, calls, or writings on various mediums, including online platforms. Overall, freedom of speech in the constitution reflects the essential principle of individuals expressing themselves without censorship or repression, serving as a crucial element of democratic governance, individual autonomy, and the protection of human rights.

The interpretation of the freedom of speech clause varies, with ongoing debates regarding the extent of government restrictions. Some scholars argue that the government should not limit speech unless it poses an immediate and evident danger, while others believe that while political speech should be unrestricted, the government can intervene if speech potentially incites danger, spreads misinformation, or harms the country’s reputation. For example, scholars such as Catherine MacKinnon, Jeremy Waldron, and Richard Delgado strongly believe that hate speech is violating people’s natural rights. They argue that although it is less direct, hate speech can cause other violence toward the group being hated which is unconstitutional. Other scholars believe that freedom of speech should be less limited like Geoffrey Stone. Stone, a constitutional law scholar, emphasizes the instrumental value of free speech for democratic governance. He argues that allowing a wide range of speech fosters public deliberation, encourages the discovery of truth, and facilitates social and political progress. Stone believes that even speech that is offensive or disagreeable should generally be protected.

Ultimately both sides are convincing but the more persuasive argument is that freedom of speech should be more limited. The reason freedom of speech should be more limited is because hate speech incites violence. Speech that promotes hatred or incites violence against individuals or groups can have harmful consequences for society. Limiting such speech aims to prevent the propagation of discrimination, hostility, and violence, which can threaten social cohesion and individuals’ well-being. Ultimately there isn’t one right answer, the specific limitations and their scope are often subject to debate, and finding the right balance between free expression and societal interests is an ongoing challenge.

Tomas Laddaga – Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

Section 4 Article 4 of the Constitution, the Guarantee Clause, is an important statement guaranteeing the states a republican form of government safe from any foreign invasion and domestic violence. The Guarantee Clause is a very vital section of the constitution, as it sets limitations on the specific type of government a state is able to possess. Thus, in place requiring the United States to prevent any singular state from being put into imposing rule by monarchs which had been a very frequent problem previously. 

Although the Guarantee Clause does require the states to have a republican form of government, it doesn’t affect the structure of such a promised government. For example the restrictions on voting rights based on race and sex that were already set in place are not altered by the clause. As well as that, different forms of democracy imposed by states will not be deprived by the Supreme Court due to the fact that the Guarantee Clause simply does not affect the design of the republic government. Other parts of the constitution involving states actions will also not normally violate the Guarantee Clause, until hundreds of years later when the court finally declared that the guarantee of a republic government to the states won’t ever be challenged. 

Scholar Gabriel J. Chin brought up an interpretation mentioning that the United States wasn’t able to complete its job under the Guarantee Clause in the context of African American suffrage. Gabriel mentions that after the Reconstruction, African Americans still went through disenfranchisement suppression politically and legally despite the guarantee clauses direct provision to protect them from domestic violence. This can be seen in the Mississippi Supreme Court Case directly stating that the white race, although they were the minority they ‘restored power’ through uprising. Thus, further showing the United states inability to keep the republican government. 

Scholar Erin M. Hawly expresses the relationship between states and the federal government; mentioning the limitations between the two. In short, arguing that the Guarantee Clause is in place to limit the federal government’s ability to interfere with individual state function. The application of the legislature is guaranteed because people make decisions through voting which restricts the role of the federal government. Erin mentions the Supreme Court case: ‘Oregon v. Mitchell’ (1970),  they stated that while Congress could set the voting age for federal elections, it did not have that power when it came to state and local elections. Further implying that the Guarantee Clause should maintain the government’s ability to alter a state’s function to a limit. Thus, keeping the republican theme of state operation. 

Between the two matters of debate, Gabriels argument seems slightly more compelling for the reason that the problem of African American suffrage has been a dark theme in the United States even up until today. The Guarantee Clause made it clear that domestic violence would be put to a limit in the states, yet the federal government didn’t do much to hold up that part. The idea behind the Guarantee Clause is a very strong one with very impactful laws, the only thing limiting its full potential being the federal government’s inability to stick through it. The only thing that should be altered about the Guarantee Clause is the federal government’s full ability to interfere with the states. 

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lDGP3mPL9NJm4srbwRkbqf2O2OU7ToX9cOjsvvqHHJw/edit

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible.