and

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from around the new United States of America came together to formulate a strong nation to replace the weak confederacy that emerged after the Revolutionary War. Article Five of said Constitution was written to give the country the ability to change as the world around it changed. Article Six was created to hold up the financial reputation of America by transferring debts, as well as sustain the standards set in earlier articles as the supreme law of the United States. Article Seven was created to streamline the process of ratifying the Constitution. 

Article Five spells out the process that the federal government has to go through in order to amend the Constitution. Either Congress can present an amendment by gathering two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to approve the amendment, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states come together to propose an amendment, Congress will call a convention and amendments will be proposed. Following this, three-fourths of state legislators must ratify the amendment. Congress could also decide to have the states call a convention purely to ratify an amendment. A final clause was tacked on to the end of this amendment stating that no amendment could be passed inhibiting the slave trade until 1808. Article Six transfers the debt and prior treaties from the national government under the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution. It also states that the federal government (and therefore the Constitution) is the supreme authority in America. Finally, it specifies that oaths should be made by legislators and executives to the people of the United States instead of a religious test as a barrier to entry. Article Seven of the Constitution states that only nine states are required to ratify the Constitution for it to be the binding federal document, and it lists all 13 states and the order in which they will call a Convention to vote on the validity of the Constitution. 

An example of a complex ratification process is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), an amendment to codify the equality of the sexes in law, was ratified by 30 states within the first year of its proposal but it met opposition after this 30-state benchmark over concerns that women would no longer be exempt from compulsory military service as well as other issues. There are other cases of discrepancy between federal and state power like some campaign finance laws and the legalization of marijuana in spite of the Controlled Substances Act.

During the initial creation of the country, the goal was as little central regulation as possible, but this turned out to be a weak way to organize the United States as many consequential regulations changed from state to state. The Constitution’s significance comes from the combination of general principles found in state Constitutions and rolled them into one document that set the federal government as the highest rule of law in the United States. Instead of changing the federal supremacy clause, the Constitution should clarify the Elasticity Clause or refine the Tenth Amendment to clarify specifically how elastic the powers of the federal government is or where state jurisdiction starts. 

Bibliography

Congress, The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy Gap with States, H.R. Doc., at 3 (Mar. 6, 2023). Accessed June 2, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Equal Rights Amendment.” Britannica. Last modified April 27, 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Equal-Rights-Amendment.

Oyez. “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Election Commission.” In Oyez. Last modified 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-489.

A Deconstruction of the 4th (and why its meaning has changed)

Video

Written Component

The writs of assistance were search warrants issued to British law enforcement officers to search ships and homes for smuggled goods to upkeep smuggling laws. These writs of assistance and general warrants that England was imposing on the colonial homes and businesses, specifically to enforce trade and navigation laws, must have concerned the authors of the Bill of Rights. Limiting the power the government has on searching and seizing the peoples’ property would especially be an anti-federalist goal since they advocated for individual liberties.   

The common interpretation of the fourth amendment centers around safeguarding the security of individuals, ensuring that neither they nor their belongings can be encroached upon or violated without a reasonable warrant. Warrants are typically awarded to enforcement officers by a judge or a magistrate and must be produced based on probable cause, or be reasonable enough to confiscate or enter your property. Additionally, warrants must be clear about what they will allow authorities to collect or search. The goal of the fourth amendment is that of maintaining citizens’ privacy and security so that you and your property cannot be intruded on or violated without a warrant.   

The exclusionary evidence rule makes all evidence that has been collected illegally, void. The Fourth Amendment has sparked debate over whether the methods of search for the collection of evidence are legal or not. Recently, the controversy has centered due to a shift of applications from physical property, such as the search of your house or your belongings, to informational or intellectual property, such as the mass collection of your internet metadata. Specifically, digital privacy, or the safeguarding of logs that internet providers or telecommunications companies store on servers has been at issue, since the information citizens feel violated by the collection and search of their personal, otherwise private data. On the other hand, the search and collection of evidence helps catch serious criminals who wouldn’t have been otherwise caught. This complicates matters because who decides when the collection is necessary and when it is intrusive?   

Locke considered the right to private property a natural right. Locke’s enlightenment ideals align with the fourth amendment right to no seizure without a proper warrant because he believed the property was private.  I find the interpretation times have changed argument more effective because it points out the similarities between physical and non-physical property. The conflict I come to with the argument that informational property should be treated the same as physical is that times have changed, and oftentimes, there is more information about us online than in our own homes. We should have the right to keep that information private. Although the data is available to internet companies, internet companies do not have the power to arrest you on your own, but the government does. The collection of data can fall under the Fourth Amendment depending on who is collecting it. If I could amend the Fourth Amendment, I would make a point to differentiate what rights people have regarding the security of their physical property versus their digital property.

The Declare War Clause and Its Multiple Interpretations

Video

Written Component

America’s primary military conflicts were fought without formal acknowledgment during the immediate post-ratification period. In the early post-ratification period, the Declare War Clause was interpreted to limit the President’s power to declare war independently. The Clause requires a formal declaration of war from Congress for the United States to use force against another country.

Many founders saw this clause as an essential limit on the President’s power and a way to ensure a formal acknowledgment of war was required before the country engaged in military conflicts. The meaning of this text, and its intention, is that The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. However, there have been various interpretations of the true meaning of the clause. There are four instances where the President can engage in military activity that complies with the Declare War Clause. First, the President may use military force if specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, the President can independently engage in disputes if it is in response to an attack on the United States. Third, the President may use the Commander-in-chief power and other constitutional powers to deploy U.S. forces in situations that do not amount to war. Finally, the President can use force under the authority of the United Nations, which some people have argued can substitute for approval by Congress.  

Scholars and commentators have multiple interpretations of this clause. Some commentators have stated that presidents have claimed authorization from informal or indirect congressional actions, such as approval of military spending, assent by congressional leaders, or even Congress’s failure to object to ongoing hostilities instead of formal direct authorization. In addition to attacks on U.S. territory, defensive responses can extend to attacks on U.S. citizens, forces abroad, or U.S. allies and U.S. interests. 

Multiple scholars have claimed that presidents can initiate the use of force independently without the consent of Congress. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea in 1973, and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Regardless of the original meaning, these examples have established a modern practice that allows the President to have a good amount of independent military power. In the Prize Cases of 1863, the Supreme Court supported Abraham Lincoln’s decision to blockade the Confederate ports following the attack on Fort Summers. On April 19 and 27, 1861, Lincoln issued decrees authorizing a blockade of Confederate ports, yet Congress did not officially recognize a state of war until July 13.

People argued that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional boundaries, but the Supreme Court decided he acted within his rights. While Congress could declare war, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to respond to attacks and resist insurrection. This clause offers a debate over a ruler’s constitutional power and how there needs to be a checking system to limit them. Monstisque highly agreed with the notion of checks and balances and concluded that the best form of government was one in which all branches of government were separate and kept each other in check to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. Although this clause is not a direct product of the checks and balances, the sentiment is the same.

The Constitution gives Congress this executive power to ensure the President cannot abuse his position. The most convincing interpretation is that presidents can independently engage in disputes as a defensive measure to protect the nation’s security. If an external force poses a threat to the integrity of American citizens, a defensive reaction is mandatory for the safety of the country.

Greyson Ward Articles 6 and 7

Video

Written Component

Looking back at the Articles of Confederation, the framers of the Constitution created the Sixth and Seventh Articles in order to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states too much power, and to ensure the Constitution was passed by a supermajority. The 6th Article declares that all debt the states had accumulated would be transferred to the new federal government. The second clause of the Sixth Article creates a hierarchy of law in the United States with the Constitution being at the top followed by federal, state, and municipal laws.

All the laws proclaimed by the Constitution and federal government, including treaties, must be upheld by federal and state judges. The final clause illuminates how all government officials are duty bound to follow the Constitution and that officials are free to practice any religion. The 7th Article declares that consent from the convention of the nine states is necessary to pass the Constitution. The Constitution can be ratified if there is a vote where nine out of thirteen states approved the new Constitution. Mark Graber in “Why Nine Meant Thirteen” highlights his view of the Seventh Article, which was that it was made to prevent the blockage of acceptance votes by only one or two states seeking more favorable terms. On the other hand, Michael B. Rappaport states in the article, “Desirability of the Constitution,” that Article Seven was passed because

it was important to get a supermajority of the population behind the Constitution. He illuminates how the protection of states’ rights and the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution because it reflected the factions in the supermajority, not just the majority. Rappaport’s argument was aligned with the framers, who had been influenced by John Locke’s concept of the protection of the inalienable rights along with Rousseau’s social contract, who wanted the supermajority because it was important that the new Constitution expressed the will of the people.

The Seventh Article was designed in a way that put pressure on states to ratify quickly, as the longer states held out, the less influence the state would have on the forming of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A case that challenged the Seventh Article was McCulloch vs Maryland, which was a feud over whether Maryland, a state, could tax a federal bank.

The outcome of the case was that the federal government held more power than a state government, resulting in a ruling supporting the view of McCulloch that a national bank is not required to pay a state tax. The case illustrates that the law of the Constitution, ratified by the states, stands atop the power pyramid of the United States, which demonstrates the enlightenment thinker’s view of the protection of the inalienable rights gained from the social contract, the United States Constitution.

A way to update this article would be to allow a state convention to repeal their vote for the ratification of the Constitution. Fortunately, the ratification process does not allow for this, as a repeal of their ratification vote would undermine the Constitution and destroy the rights Americans hold dear to their hearts. 

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

Article V covers the legal process of Amending the Constitution. It was drafted in response to the hesitation of certain states to ratify the Constitution. When an amendment is proposed, ⅔ of both houses, the Senate, and the House of Representatives need to agree to an amendment to move to the next step. The amendment then goes to state legislatures and ¾ of all legislatures must ratify it within 7 years or it will lapse. Scholars disagree about whether a state can revoke their vote in favor of an amendment. Some scholars feel that states should not be allowed to take away their vote for an amendment as that power is not explicitly stated in Article V.

Opposing scholars do not see an issue as long as the state makes its decision within the 7 year limit. Article VI of the Constitution covers debts and supreme law. It states that all debts from the previous government under the Articles of Confederation are still valid under the new Constitution, and that all members of the three branches of the new government must take an oath of allegiance to the new Constitution. As a new nation, allyship and allegiance were important and this oath ensured that the government would stand with one another as a nation under the new Constitution.

This Article also states that federal law is more powerful than state law, and when in conflict federal law becomes the, “the supreme Law of the Land”. In McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819), the state of Maryland wanted to impose taxes on the Second Bank of the United States but the cashier of the Baltimore branch refused to pay. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that because the bank was a federally created and controlled institution, the state did not have the right to tax it. This is a clear example of the national supremacy clause, in a conflict of power between state and federal rights, the federal government has more power. Article VII covers the process of the ratification of the Constitution.

It states that in order to ratify the Constitution, 9 out of 13 states must agree to it. This article is a response to the Articles of Confederation which stated that all states were required for ratification. This provision created conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists pointed out that the new constitution was not supreme law yet, as it had not been ratified and therefore the process in the Articles of Confederation still stood. Federalists argued that because there had been so many violations of the Articles of Confederation they no longer stood as supreme law and that Article VII was now the guiding principle for constitutional ratification. Through the conflict and disagreement that these Articles faced, they prevailed by reshaping the Constitution to what it is today. 

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

Jared Davis – The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Video

Written Component

The Ninth Amendment, written and framed by James Madison, is one of the most debated and ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. It states that certain rights in the Constitution do not mean that other rights do not exist. The main point of conflict revolves around identifying these additional rights. One shared interpretation is that these rights refer to the natural rights inherent from birth, as the Constitution only specifies some rights in great detail. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the amendment was crafted. During the debates between antifederalists and federalists on including a bill of rights, James Madison argued that listing specific rights would leave the government to argue that only the enumerated rights are protected. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment seeks to balance and protect both enumerated and retained rights, subject to interpretation. While the amendment has not been frequently used in cases, it has found use in both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In these cases, the court used the ninth to recognize privacy rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but considered pre-existing rights deserving protection. These examples help reinforce the amendment’s significance in countering the criticism of vague language, although the lack of explicit mention of these rights leaves room for further interpretation. The Ninth Amendment remains the most complex amendment within the Constitution, prompting us to question what new rights today may exist that should have been included in the original document.

 

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is historically and interpretively significant. It addresses concerns over individual rights, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Its inclusion aimed to prevent an excessive concentration of power in the federal government and respond to the demands of the states and their citizens. Commonly understood, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states’ rights and authority, ensuring a balanced power distribution between the federal government and the states. However, interpretations have diverged over time. Some argue it grants states broad powers to resist federal encroachment, while others believe it has limitations and does not grant absolute state sovereignty. The Supreme Court case of New York v. United States (1992) illustrates the debate over the Tenth Amendment. The ruling favored New York, reaffirming state sovereignty and reviving the amendment’s significance. It emphasized the amendment’s role in maintaining a balanced power distribution and protecting states from excessive federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment connects to federalism, balancing individual rights, government authority, and shared power. Its preservation of state sovereignty and protection of rights make it significant. The interpretation that grants states broad powers is more persuasive. It aligns with federalism and the amendment’s intent, preserving state autonomy and authority. Given its historical context and ongoing relevance, I would not advocate amending the Tenth Amendment. It safeguards state sovereignty and individual rights, and altering it could disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states, undermining the principles of federalism.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights

Video

Written Component

The motivation for the Third Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights came from the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act was a law that allowed British soldiers to be sheltered in the private homes of colonists.(1) The amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to house soldiers in the private residences of citizens of the United States without the owners’ express permission in times of peace, but during war the process of quartering soldiers must be prescribed for by law. Some scholars interpret the Third Amendment as applying to increasingly militarized police forces in addition to the military. However, this understanding of the amendment was defeated in the 2015 case Mitchell v. City of Henderson where the plaintiffs were forced out of their home by police in preparation for a nearby operation. Mitchell sued the city on the grounds that his Third Amendment rights had been violated, but a Federal Court decided that the police are not soldiers so the amendment did not apply.(2) The Third Amendment, like checks and balances on power in other parts of the constitution, is a roadblock to government overreach. The policing interpretation of the Third amendment is persuasive to me because it controls the interactions between citizens and the police. In my opinion the amendment should be altered to protect against quartering from both military and law enforcement personnel. 

General warrants in Britain and writs of association in the colonies were some of the major pressures that led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. General warrants and writs of association allowed law enforcement to search a person’s property without any suspicion of a crime. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that a warrant only be issued with a reasonable level of suspicion for a crime, and with specific objectives. What constitutes probable cause or a search in the Fourth Amendment has been debated by many legal scholars. A Supreme Court decision in 1985 over the case Dow Chemical Company vs. The United States partially answered the question of what constitutes a search. Dow Chemicals sued the US on the basis that its Fourth amendment rights had been violated after the EPA observed their factory grounds without a warrant. The Court decided in the favor of the United States, because the factory’s grounds were an open area and the Fourth amendment only deals with “the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur.” The Fourth amendment is another amendment like the Third that deals with the specter of an authoritarian government overpowering the people. I agree with the interpretation that mass government surveillance is unconstitutional because it searches the personal data of people unsuspected of a crime. I also agree with the interpretation that security checks are constitutional, because people are making a decision to agree to the security check when they enter the area. I would not advocate any changes to the Fourth amendment because it protects the people from unreasonable law enforcement activity.

 

1 – American Battlefield Trust, “The Quartering Act,” American Battlefield Trust, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/quartering-act#:~:text=The%20last%20act%20passed%20was,quarter%20or%20house%20British%20soldiers.

2 – Leonard Niehoff, “What Is the Third Amendment, and Will the Supreme Court Ever Examine It Again?,” interview by Andrew Cohen, Brennan Center for Justice, last modified August 3, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-third-amendment-and-will-supreme-court-ever-examine-it-again#:~:text=Into%20this%20category%20goes%20the,up%20to%20the%20Revolutionary%20War.

 

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.