article-3

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.

Daya: Article 3 Section 3 The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

 

The treason clause is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. It was not included to insure loyalty of citizens, but rather was included as a precautionary measure to prevent against the government’s misuse of treason prosecutions to stifle legitimate political opposition. By specifying the terms necessary for one to be convicted of treason, trials were focused on the narrowly defined terms of treason and prevented the punishment of cases without sufficient evidence.

The Treason Clause states that treason can only be prosecuted under two circumstances: levying war against the United States or providing enemies with aid and support. In order for an individual to be convicted, there must be testimony from two witnesses of the overt offense or a confession in open court. Additionally, the clause states that Congress is responsible for determining the punishment for treason while also saying that the punishment cannot extend beyond the convicted person’s life. This means that there can be no forfeiture of wealth and property.

In 1807 a case called Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout emerged. The case focused around an alleged plot by former Vice President Aaron Burr and two associates to overthrow the government in New Orleans. However, due to the strict definition of treason, they were not convicted. The Supreme Court decided that conspiring to levy war, such as drawing plans, recruiting troops, and finding maps, was different than having a group of people ready to commit the treasonous act. 

In another treason case, Cramer v the United States in 1954, the defendant, Cramer, was prosecuted for allegedly helping a Nazi soldier who had snuck into America during World War II. The court decided that in the case, there was both concrete action and intent to betray the nation, and therefore Cramer was convicted. This set the bar very high for other treason cases because it required both evident action and intent to betray the nation. In this case, the government attempted to argue that the Treason Clause should be interpreted leniently for wartime use. The court held true to the Framers’ beliefs and dismissed the idea of leniency during wartime, saying that treason cannot be the primary legal weapon to protect national security. While Cramer was convicted for treason, the court told the government that they could pursue other charges such as the  violation of the Espionage act, or the Trading with the Enemy Act without having to go through the specific Treason Clause. This ruling made it much harder to convict someone for treason in the future as there had to be evidence of support for the enemy and intention to betray the nation.

This begs the question, is the Treason Clause still relevant. Firstly, someone can still commit treason, which was the case for Adam Gadahn who was indicted for treason in 2006. Secondly, the Treason Clause represents the original values of the Framers. The strict procedure to convict someone is a reminder that the Framers did not want the government to suppress political opposition with threats of treason and wanted to safeguard individual rights. In America, the rise of the public sphere meant that different political ideas were freely circulating. In addition, today, with the widespread usage of social media, many political ideologies are discussed frequently. In both of these cases, the Framers’ original intentions prevent these discussions from having any repercussions.

The Treason Clause – Lauren Nam

Video

Written Component

The Constitution’s framers’ intention by writing the treason clause was not to enforce strict loyalty to America onto the citizens but to prevent the abuse of treason prosecution. Recognizing the historic misuse of accusations of treason to stamp out political oppositions, in order to avoid forming a repressive government, this clause attempts to expressly define the act of treason and enforce restrictions for prosecution. 

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 constitutes treason against the United States only as two types of actions. The first act considered treason is declaring war. The second act is assisting and abetting an enemy of the United States. The second half of this clause establishes safeguards against prosecution of treason. To be convicted of treason, this clause requires at least two witnesses to testify to have seen the same explicitly treasonous act or the defendant to confess in open court.

Although these two umbrellas of actions may seem vague, the Court has interpreted this clause very narrowly, in line with the Framers’ original intentions, and has only indicted one person of treason since 1954. By writing this clause, the Framers limited Congress’ ability to define treason and instated difficult parameters to proving the crime.

The Court’s interpretation of the definitions of treason over the years have remained specific, with the Court, in many cases, reaffirming the distinction between conspiring to and actually levying war. In the case of Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), which pertained to the covert plot of Aaron Burr to overthrow the New Orleans government and tried two of his associates, both defendants were dismissed of their charges.

The necessity of concrete action and not just sentiment or expression against the United States in order to convict a person of treason, is a protection of the first Amendment and the rights of citizens. Under the treason clause, the Court found that the actions of Bollman and Swarthout were insufficiently carried out to be considered treasonous acts, establishing that intent alone cannot incriminate someone. However, as illustrated in subsequent cases, intent is pivotal in meeting the strict parameters that the Treason Clause requires to meet.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 2 grants Congress the power to decide the punishment of treason, however, protects the right of the family members to inherit property of those convicted of treason after such person has died. The clause specifically mentions, “Corruption of Blood”, a reference to English Common Law. In order to diverge from English Common law, in which Corruption of Blood was the automatic punishment of attainder for treason, the Framers prevent the consequences of treason beyond the convict’s life. 

While the Framers were trying to prevent the abuse of the treason clause, the French were on the brink of revolution. The French Revolution, specifically the reign of terror, unfolded in events that the Constitution was actively fighting against. The paranoia and fear of counter revolution which characterized the period led to mass executions and public unrest. The bloody events of the reign of terror is a testament to the necessity of the treason clause.

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.