Uncategorized

Campbell Langdon – Amendment VIII

Video

Written Component

The Eighth Amendment: Safeguarding Justice and Human Dignity

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1791 and is a part of the Bill of Rights, is a crucial supporter of justice and the defense of human rights. The amendment forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments and places restrictions on the use of exorbitant fines and bail for US residents. The founding fathers were committed to building a just society that upheld individual liberty. They recognized the significance of shielding citizens from cruel punishments by drawing on important texts like the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The colonies’ arbitrary and cruel treatment under British rule during the colonial era prompted the need to establish a constitutional bulwark against those similar behaviors.

The Eighth Amendment exemplifies the principles of proportionality, human dignity, and the evolving standards of decency. By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, it prevents the state from resorting to barbaric or excessively harsh penalties, ensuring that punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense. This provision reinforces the idea that all individuals, regardless of their transgressions, possess inherent dignity that should never be violated.

It also prevents the imposition of excessive fines and bail in addition to outlawing cruel penalties. These restrictions guard against the state’s potential misuse of power and advance equitable justice for all by shielding people from being unfairly subjected to disproportionate financial penalties.

This Amendment’s applicability and interpretation have been the focus of numerous court cases over the years. The definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is one of the main areas of disagreement. Some contend that the amendment should change to reflect the standards of society as they change, while others push for a rigorous reading based on original intent.

The use of the death penalty has been at the center of much controversy. Opponents argue that capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, given the possibility of wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the inherent cruelty of the act itself. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that it serves as a just response to heinous crimes and provides closure to victims’ families.

In Furman vs Georgia, the Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was constitutional if juries were given standards to guide them in their sentencing deliberations. However, they also deemed existing legal constructions for the death penalty unconstitutional. 

Similar discussions have taken place over the conditions of incarceration, such as extended periods of time spent in solitary confinement or limited access to quality medical treatment. While defenders of the techniques claim they are important for preserving security and order in correctional facilities, detractors claim they are in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment continues to be a pillar of justice and human rights, providing crucial safeguards against unusually harsh penalties, disproportionate fines, and bail. While there are still arguments about how it should be interpreted, its core goals—to protect human dignity, advance proportionality, and uphold a just society—remain constant.

Pema – The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, soon after its ratification in 1777, the Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that was strong enough to run the country while being conscious of potentially giving the government too much power and not protecting the people’s rights enough. The Articles of Confederation didn’t centralize the power under the federal government enough and gave the states too much individual power which led to its replacement in 1789. The Treason Clause in section 3 of Article 3 is one important article that helped to restrain the power of the government in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility of treason being weaponized by a future president to silence the people and any political opposition. The Founding Fathers incorporated the Treason Clause to prevent the government from becoming too powerful and becoming like the British monarchy. 

The Constitution defines treason as an act of an American betraying the allegiance that they owe to their country. The Treason Clause limits treason to two different kinds: treason by waging war against the U.S. and treason by helping the enemies of the U.S. by providing them “aid and comfort”. In order to sentence someone for treason, there must either be two witnesses that can testify to the same treasonous action or the accused person has to confess in open court. If someone is convicted of treason, Congress has jurisdiction and is able to make the punishment. However, the punishment has to be one that only the convicted person pays. Congress cannot extend the punishment to the convicted person’s family or the next generation of the family.

Over the years, many different cases have been made from different interpretations of the Treason Clause because what qualifies as treason was never fully specified. One example of this was in the case of Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout where levying war was clarified. Bollman and Swarthout were two of Aaron Burr’s associates who came forward accusing Aaron Burr of plotting treason to overthrow the government in New Orleans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that Aaron Burr was not guilty of treason and the distinction was made between conspiring to commit treason and taking action to commit treason. Conspiring to commit treason wouldn’t be considered treason but when steps/actions were taken, that would be considered treason.

The Treason Clause connects to an overarching theme of Enlightenment because some Enlightenment ideals were the idea of people having God-given rights and moving away from a monarchy and that’s exactly what the Treason Clause helps to accomplish. The Treason Clause protects the rights of people by offering safeguards to make it hard to be convicted of treason. The Treason Clause also limits the power of the government which helps balance the powers out evenly to prevent tyranny.

Augie Emmanuel Article 2, Section 4: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

On July 4th, 1776, the United States of America announced to the world their independence from Britain. However, America’s path to the country it is today was not finalized right then and there. Instead, it would be another 11 years before the Constitution that is still in place now was written. When the founding fathers met in Philadelphia, 1787, to write the Constitution, they had quite a tall task set out for them. There were many uncertainties centered around the new government of the still young nation and many heated debates. However, one unanimous agreement was that the new form of government had to look much different from Britain’s. So instead of having a monarchy, America was assembled into a democratic republic. The government was divided into three branches; the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive branch was of course the president of the United States. It was extremely important that the Constitution had measures in place in order to make sure that not one person could possess too much power and become a monarchial dictator. This is why checks and balances can be seen throughout Article 2 of the Constitution, and the whole document for that matter. One of the largest and most important checks and balances was the Impeachment Clause in Article 2, Section 4. 

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution, also known as the Impeachment Clause, established the grounds by which a President, Vice President, and other civil officers could be impeached and removed from their positions. If they were to be convicted of treason, bribery, and other “high crimes and misdemeanors” they could be removed from office. However, since there is no definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution, its interpretation has been subject to debate between many historians. 

One of the early drafts of the Constitution wrote that Congress had the ability to impeach officers for “maladministration.” However, James Madison was famously opposed to this idea because he felt the term was too vague. He believed that the word maladministration would allow for impeachment without any real reason.  With this being said, one matter of debate was whether the Constitution should have had more specific wording in what could be considered as an impeachable offense. Chief Justice John Marshall famously argued that since the Constitution was written to endure for many years, its language had to be vague. The Constitution had to be ready for anything Americans threw at it. The founding fathers certainly could not predict the future — if they had been specific in their language in the Impeachment Clause, it is likely that an official today could evade punishment today due to some small technicality, or modern interpretation. 

I personally believe it is important that the Constitution remains vague. It is impossible to write a document designed to be used for centuries with extremely specific details since standards and ideals will inevitably change over time. Additionally, I do believe there are some problems with the Impeachment Clause that could be amended. While three presidents have been impeached in US history, zero have been removed from office. In many scenarios, political parties can get in the way of convicting a civil officer. A senator is often unlikely to vote in favor of impeaching another member of the same party as them. This senator may rely on the same supporters as the person they are impeaching, and voting to remove them from office could be a huge political risk. Impeachment is a powerful and important tool. It is key in maintaining democracy — this is why the Impeachment Clause should be amended slightly to account for political parties so that officers can still be removed from their position if necessary. 

 

Commerce Clause and Declare War Clause – Annika Maduraperuma

Video

Written Component

The Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution created a weak federal government, giving too much autonomy and power to the states, upsetting the power balances. The Constitution sought to fix this, and in Article 1, the legislative branch is created, balancing and regulating state and federal power. Section 8, often called “the enumerated powers of congress” is thought of as a direct response to the problems of the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce clause, Clause 3 of Article 1, Section 8, is commonly understood to display the power Congress has to regulate commerce and trade internally, externally, and with Native American tribes. This clause stops states from interfering or obstructing interstate commerce. The reach of the commerce clause has become increasingly expansive over time. In Gibbons v Ogden (1824), Chief Justice Marshall expanded the definition of commerce to intercourse, the dealings and discussions between groups or individuals at large. As time went on, other Supreme Court cases slowly defined that anything that ends in profit, and requires interstate movement in that process, can be federally regulated. After United States v. Darby (1941), Congress’ regulation was redefined to encompass any intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce. In Katzenbach v McClung (1964), the Court’s unanimous decision enforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and set the precedent that segregation interfered with interstate commerce because of its effect on transportation and business. This stopped McClung from refusing to serve African Americans and gave Congress the power to stop segregation.

The Declare War Clause, Clause 11 of Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the sole power to declare war and commence hostilities. At the time of creation, it was meant to be a check on the President’s power. But, in the modern day, it is commonly misunderstood that war is declared by the President, as the powers of the Declare War clause and the President’s position as commander in chief of the armed forces blur. After the Gulf of Tonkin incident, President Johnson asked for and received a resolution from Congress allowing him to ensure international and Southeast Asian peace and US safety and prevent further aggression through any necessary means. This resolution served as grounds for the rest of the military action President Johnson and President Nixon oversaw during the Vietnam war, though a formal declaration of war was never decreed (1). Tension specifically rose between Congress and the President when Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia without congressional consent or oversight in 1970 (2). This led to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which forced the President to report any use of armed forces to Congress within 48 hours, after which if Congress failed to authorize use of hostilities in the next 60 days, the President must terminate any action. While meant to limit executive power, it implicitly gives them a period of guaranteed action, continuing the battle over military checks and balances.

  1. National Archives, “Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964),” National Archives, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/tonkin-gulf-resolution.

  2. Richard Nixon Presidential Library, “War Powers Resolution of 1973,” Richard Nixon Presidential Library, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973#:~:text=Congress%20passed%20the%20War%20Powers,from%20Vietnam%20in%20early%201973.

Elections and Suspension Clause – Alex Berman

Video

Written Component

The Articles of Confederation demonstrated the dangers of giving states too much power, so when drafting the Elections Clause worries arose that if each state had complete control over their own elections, they could compromise Congress’ abilities by opting not to hold an election at all. Thus, the Elections Clause gives states the authority to regulate most aspects of congressional elections, while still offering Congress the power to overwrite any of those regulations. In the Elections Clause, a lack of clarification, such as the meaning of state legislature and what counts as prescribing the “times, places, and manner of holding elections,” has led to varying interpretations of the right of states to regulate elections.

In the supreme court case of Cook V. Gralike, Missouri argued that they could put negative warnings on an election ballot based on if a candidate would support a bill or not. This was ruled unconstitutional because while it is an alteration of the manner of an election, it at the same time is an attempt to regulate the outcome of the election. I agree with this decision because the Elections Clause allows states and congress to regulate the manner of congressional elections, but not their outcomes. For the sake of clarification, the Elections Clause should be amended to define in more detail state legislature and the regulatory actions that states are allowed to take. The Elections Clause demonstrates how the faults seen in the Articles of Confederation were addressed in the Constitution, primarily by granting the federal government power over the states. In article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause explains the application and suspension of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus protects citizens from being arbitrarily arrested by allowing someone who has been arrested to challenge the legal justification of their detention in court. Americans knew that people in England, up until just over a century before the Constitutional Convention, were sometimes imprisoned for life without any trial. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was of the utmost importance to include in the Constitution. Equally important, however, was Congress’ right to suspend it, illustrated by the fact that habeas corpus was suspended just months before the Constitutional Convention during Shays’ rebellion. The Suspension Clause insures that someone who has been arrested has the right to a trial, unless the arrest is during a rebellion or invasion. A debate about the Suspension Clause, however, regards the process with which habeas corpus can be suspended. In the four instances of suspension, three times the president got permission through Congress, however during the civil war Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own, without the expressed consent of Congress.

To me it would make more sense for a president to first need to get permission from congress to prevent the president from having sole authority to make unlimited uncontested arrests. Because of this, I believe that the Suspension Clause should be amended to clarify the process to suspend habeas corpus.

The Fourth Amendment- Charlotte Simon

Video

Written Component

The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British policies allowing raiding of people’s houses and personal belongings without cause. The English government would issue “writs of assistance” essentially allowing British officers to barge into people’s homes and seize their belongings. The Framers, specifically James Madison, knew this was a direct violation of privacy and basic rights. With this in mind, Madison wrote the fourth amendment, as they did not want the Constitution to subject future Americans to unreasonable, lawless searches. The fourth amendment ensures the privacy and safety of American citizens. Personal items and property are protected by this amendment, as it prevents the police from searches and seizures of personal property without a justifiable reason.

 

The wording of the fourth amendment provides for it to be interpreted in a few different ways. Supreme Court Justices do not always agree on how the amendment should be enforced and even if the amendment should be followed in the first place. On one hand, some Justices stick to the wording of the amendments and argue that warrants are absolutely necessary, and if they are not obtained, the search would be illegitimate. However, some Justices, claiming that a warrant is not needed, as long as the search is reasonable and “upon probable cause.” Legal scholar Barry Friedman thinks that the amendment is essential to everyday protection. He argues that our data is constantly being analyzed, like internet cookies, and that the fourth amendment is protecting the people’s security and keeping the government out of our lives and property without a justifiable reason.

 

He also proposes guidelines for searches and seizures. First, he argues that no one from the executive branch can step into people’s lives without permission from another branch of government because no search is “reasonable” if the legislative or judicial cannot also agree on it. Second, warrants are favored as they are crucial for protecting public safety. Lastly, searches should be differentiated between society and suspects. Though it is a bit of a stretch, the fourth amendment is an amendment that gives power to the people, not an uncommon theme in the French Revolution. The third estate in France fought for equal taxes and power, and the fourth amendment protects the American people from an overstepping government. So while both are different, they do share the same theme of giving power to the people and keeping their respective governments in check. I am a believer in warrants and the fourth amendment as a whole. As the world and technology becomes more and more invasive, sometimes I really worry about the security of my data. The fourth amendment is in our constitution to protect us, and our property’s safety. As for warrants, they allow the policing force to perform searches and seizures in a significantly less invasive way. And, when they do perform searches/ seizures without a warrant, legally it has to be because they have a genuine reason.

Charlotte Sleeper – Sixth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment elaborates on the second section of Article III, and declares that defendants also have the right to a speedy trial by jury, representation by a lawyer, and the right to face the witnesses for the prosecution. This amendment was particularly relevant to the Framers’, as one of the driving forces of the Revolution was the fact that, due to the Sugar Act allowing King George III to hold the colonists on trial in England, they were not given a fair trial.  

The Framers’ had to ensure that the people had faith in the American trial system in order for the constitution to be ratified. This is clear in the Federalist Paper Number 51, in which Alexander Hamilton remarks that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists could agree upon the significance of safeguarding the right to trial by jury. The most contentious point of the amendment is how it can be applied to modern elements of the prosecution process, most notably the concept of forensic evidence. While, initially, the right to be presented with the witnesses for the prosecution was not a contentious matter, it has grown significantly more complicated in the world of advancing forensic analysis as well as video testimony.  

Stephanos Biblas, a U.S. circuit judge, believes that the sixth amendment does not require the exclusion of forensic evidence from a prosecution case if the coroner or other members of forensic investigations are unable to attend the trial if they have died or are otherwise unable to attend. He emphasizes the fact that forensic reports are a separate matter from police reports, stating that the Confrontation Clause of the sixth amendment was only meant to limit the replacement of live testimony with police reports had thus has no jurisdiction over limiting the use of forensic evidence. Another scholar, Jerry L. Fisher, argues that forensic evidence should be considered similarly to other forms of testimony and thus excluded if the analysts are unable to attend a live trial. He cites the fact that, while forensic evidence is often considered to be objective, the process of forensic analysis can be much more biased than the prosecution presents, leading to a false conviction if the forensic analysts cannot be cross-examined by the defense.  

While I sympathise with Biblas’s points surrounding the significance of forensic evidence, I ultimately concur with Fisher that the defendant has the right to have forensic evidence cross-examined. Although not explicitly stated, it is widely accepted that the Sixth Amendment illustrates the implied right of defendants to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Without the cross-examination of defense lawyers, it is too difficult to determine if the conclusions that forensic analysts come to are accurate. The debate surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) illustrates this point well, as it exemplifies that many forensic conclusions are based upon observations of symptoms, such as (in this case) patterns of head trauma. Since 2019, at least 21 people convicted based upon evidence of SBS have been exonerated, demonstrating the fallibility of forensic evidence, and thus the need for cross-examination of forensic analysts should the defendant desire it.

Teddy – The Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is commonly known as the Impeachment Clause. This section states that certain people in the United States government (“the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers”) can be removed from office if they are found guilty of certain types of misconduct (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”).

The idea of impeachment came from the English system where as a way to check the King’s power, Parliament could impeach ministers and those favored by the King. Contrary to the English practice at the time where any private or public person except for members of the royal family could be impeached, the Framers of the Constitution sought to limit who could be impeached and the offenses eligible for impeachment.

Per Article I, Section 1, only Congress has impeachment powers. The House of Representatives first must vote to impeach, or formally charge, the individual and then must write the articles which detail the charges before submitting them to the Senate. After convening a trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict and remove the official from office. Influenced by Enlightenment philosophes like Montesquieu, the Framers included the Impeachment Clause to allow Congress to check the Executive and Judicial branches as part of the system of checks and balances they created among the three branches of government. In order to discourage Congress from abusing its power, however, the impeachment process requires bipartisan cooperation to achieve the two-thirds vote required for conviction and removal. As a result, Congress has exercised its impeachment power infrequently, reserving it for cases where an individual’s misconduct is considered too dangerous to remain unchecked.

While judicial precedent is often used to interpret Constitutional provisions, the Judicial Branch has no authority over or involvement in the impeachment process; instead, Congress looks to historical precedent as a guide. As “civil Officers” is not defined in the Constitution, there was once a question as to whether or not members of Congress were included and subject to impeachment, but the common interpretation is that they are not Officers of the United States because Officers are appointed by the President. Instead, other provisions in the Constitution provide ways to remove members of Congress from office.

While Treason and Bribery are well defined concepts, there has been much debate around what constitutes a high Crime or Misdemeanor. In an early draft of the clause, “maladministration” was an impeachable offense, but out of concern that Congress would impeach on any grounds, the Framers replaced the term with “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As with other provisions of the Constitution, the Framers were purposely ambiguous in their wording in order to create a lasting system of government that is flexible enough to address unexpected circumstances and allow the removal of an official whose behavior is harmful to the public. It is commonly understood that this clause exists to allow a process for removing government officials not for incompetence, but for abuses of power.

Layla Boyce: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individual rights by ensuring a fair and just legal system. One event does not appear to have prompted the addition of the Fifth Amendment; rather, the amendment was born out of a recognition of the importance of a just legal system. The Fifth Amendment includes five separate protections: right to a trial by jury (the right to be judged by an unbiased audience of informed citizens), protection against “double jeopardy” (one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense), protection against self-incrimination (individuals are not compelled to implicate themselves), the right to a fair and speedy trial (cases should not involve prejudice or unnecessary delays), and protection of private property (without compensation, the government cannot seize personal property). Of these provisions, one of the most controversial features of the Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination, commonly known as the “right to remain silent”.  

The relevant text of the Amendment reads, “ …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”.  Generally, it is interpreted to mean individuals are permitted to refuse to answer incriminating questions or “take the 5th” during a criminal trial.  These protections have been extended to the pre-trial investigation stage.  Law enforcement is obligated to inform suspects in custody of their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by reading them an explanation known as a Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, demonstrates the issues caused by the broad language of the Fifth Amendment. Archie Dixon was questioned first about forgery without being Mirandized and his requests for an attorney were ignored. Subsequently, during a second interrogation after receiving Miranda warnings, he confessed to murder. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the police’s actions during the first were unconstitutional and that the second questioning was thus impermissibly tainted. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision arguing that “Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody…” It was decided that there was no nexus between the improper unwarned admission to forgery and his later Mirandized confession to murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dixon’s confession was properly elicited and reinstated his conviction.  

Furthermore, Griffin v. California (1965), a Supreme Court case, challenged the practice inferring guilt against defendants who employed their Fifth Amendment rights. Many people then were coerced into testifying to prevent the assumption of guilt.  The Supreme Court decided in Griffin this practice rendered the Fifth Amendment protections hollow as no one should be  ‘made “worse off” by asserting the Fifth than by not asserting it.’

The Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring due process rights, and safeguarding property rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a significant role in protecting individual rights against the potential abuses of a  powerful government.

Giselle Barker – Final Constitution Project, Article 2, Section 4

Video

Written Component

The second article in the Constitution constrains the elements of the executive branch, which is one of the three established in the Constitution. The fourth section in the article, gives power to the people by allowing impeachment to elected officials, as well as allows the other branches to check the executive system. The section states that reasons for impeachment can be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, the motivation for including this within the Constitution is to prevent any corruption from taking place in office.

This connects back to the fear that many Americans and public leaders had of undergoing the American Revolution again because of the abuse of power from King George. The common understanding of section 4 is that Congress has the power to vote on the removal of the President, Vice President, or other elected officials.

However, matters of debate on the clarity of this section of the article have been interpreted differently, the particular line “high crimes and Misdemeanors” have been regarded as not specific enough to be a claim. Since high crimes and misdemeanors could include misdemeanors as small as littering to a first-degree misdemeanor charge, many scholars debate that this statement is too vague and could mean that littering could qualify as an impeachable offense.

As an example, scholars use the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1998 when Bill Clinton was being tried under the statement of “high crimes and misdemeanors” after lying under oath about an affair. The question arose of whether or not certain crimes could be an impeachable offense, especially since the misdemeanor occurred under unofficial matters and was heavily based on how protected his private life by lying. This example shows how the statement “misdemeanors” could be confusing and not allow for a filter of what is considered impeachable or not. 

Based on both the common and divergent interpretation, I understand how the language used in the 4th section can come off as confusing and is too vague to be able to cause the impeachment of an office official. An adaptation that I believe would be beneficial would be to add the word first degree misdemeanors instead of just the word misdemeanors. This allows for confusion around the term misdemeanors to be eliminated and stops the idea that the section’s vagueness makes impeachment hard to apply. As well, this adaptation could be very helpful for possible upcoming impeachment trials and save the debate of whether the offense is considered impeachable.