1

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.

Jacob Sorett – Article 1 Section 4 The Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause was made to solely manage the election of the House and Senate, not the president. According to, Micheal T. Morley and Franita Tolson, it was written to ensure that all states hold elections for Congress and that their procedures for said elections are fair.

 The main purpose of the text is to balance the power of the state and of Congress in voting for representatives. More specifically, the clause is known to establish that each state can set its own conditions in which voting takes place, but that these conditions can be lawfully changed by Congress. 

Even with a common interpretation of the election clause, there are several divergent perspectives about its contents. An example of the above would be how some states more widely distribute power and create “independent redistricting commissions”. This was done in order to prevent the division of voters and keep current members of Congress in their offices. This viewpoint includes the idea of “independent redistricting commissions” being ideal for the Elections Clause for it displays that there is a fairer way to hold elections than what the clause outlines. An example specifically in the court would be Cook v. Gralike. Don Gralike came before the court and argued for the Congressional Term Limit Amendment. It permitted for warnings to be written next to the names of previously elected representatives who opposed Congressional term limits.

However, the supreme court declared that the Elections Clause prevents the state from doing so due to how the amendment is clearly biased towards candidates that support term limits. This serves as a perfect example of different interpretations of the election clause. From the perspective of the court, the Elections Clause should protect members of Congress by preventing the state from going against officials opposing term limits. From the perspective of Don Gralike, the clause allows for the state to still express the manner in which the process is done, and this manner he believes should include warnings next to candidates’ names.

Another case where the Elections Clause was debated was U.S. Term Limits, Inc, v. Thornton. The side of Thorton argued that states should be able to neglect to print the names of candidates who had served in Congress for three terms. Again the supreme court prevented this and declared that the Elections Clause requires all candidates to be displayed on ballots. The supreme court had yet again ruled in favor of Congress and its present officers, once again displaying the court’s interpretation of the clause. 

I find the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the election clause to be more reasonable and persuasive. The Elections Clause’s ultimate goal is to give Congress the power to keep the state in check, preventing unfair and corrupt voting procedures. With more lenient interpretations this is not the case, and this includes arguments such as the one in Cook v. Gralike. States shouldn’t be allowed to make such changes that are clearly in favor of specific candidates, and I think that the view of the supreme court entails this point. If I were to amend this clause, I would allow Congress to alter where the votes are made, as the Elections Clause currently bands this. The state could manage to make change the voting turnout by setting the location of the ballots to specific places. For example, if the state of New York changed all of its ballot locations to extremely far upstate, that would not reflect the vast majority of New York’s votes. This is because most residents don’t live upstate. I think Congress should be able to regulate this to ensure the right amount of voter turnout. 

Declare War Clause: Article 1, Section 8

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was created, Article 1, Section 8 dealt with federalism, the separation of the powers on the national level versus the state level. The common interpretation of this section has changed over time, and one can generalize them into four broad categories in chronological order. At first, this section was perceived as Enumerated Rights Federalism, which meant that the national government was characterized as a government with limited powers. The national government had power as far as the enumeration in Section 8 went, but the states had everything else that was left over. State power was not given by outlining them directly, but instead by outlining the power of the federal government.

The second category was Fundamental Rights Federalism, where after the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, the federal government was given the power to override state legislation in order to protect the fundamental rights of American citizens. The third category was New Deal Federalism, which ended Enumerated Rights Federalism, because this gave the federal government the power to regulate the states themselves in terms of intrastate commerce.

Now, enter into the modern era, where courts are trying to find a way to draw lines in order to identify where Congress’ powers end and where states’ powers start. Such efforts include preventing Congress from interfering in noneconomic intrastate activity. This is called State Sovereignty Federalism, where courts try to carve out a zone of autonomy for the states. Federalism has been debated for a long time, whether it be the amount of rights delegated to the national government and Congress versus the states. Some are staunch supporters of giving states the vast majority of rights, pointing to how individual states can establish different legislative/economic systems as a form of experimentation to see which sort of system works best.

Some argue that the methods of the court in terms of determining federalism based on the sovereignty of the states is not a method that adequately takes into account the intricacies of the relationship between the federal and state governments. When talking specifically about the Declare War Clause in Section 8, the common interpretation of that also falls into debate. However, the two sides of the debate are a bit different from the federal vs state government debate.

The debate in this clause specifically is between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The wording of the clause states that Congress can “declare war”, make legislation about conquering on land and water, authority to permit privateers to use force upon an enemy, and authority to legalize the seizing of another foreign nation’s property as repayment for debt. Up until the modern era, it has been unclear whether the Declare War Clause permits the executive branch to respond to sudden violent attacks.

In the case of The Bey of Tripoli, when war was declared upon the United States, President Thomas Jefferson sent frigates in response. However, Congress never formally declared a state of war with the Bey of Tripoli, and ever since, it has been unclear to what extent the executive branch can respond with force to a threat without the authorization of Congress, if at all. Judicial courts have also largely left this issue alone, so the executive branch and Congress have simply needed to reach a state of compromise and agreement with each other.