clause

Reese C-Constitution Project-The Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

The Declare War Clause is a part of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States. The clause states “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” The framers of the Constitution wished to include this clause to create a concrete limit on the power of the executive branch and disallow a single person from controlling such a momentous decision as Declaring War, unlike the British Monarchy where the king can declare war.

By vesting the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, the framers guaranteed that there would be checks and balances to the decision as Congress would need to vote to instigate a war. The clause has commonly been understood as vesting the power to declare war in Congress in order to limit the power of the Executive Branch and add a democratic process into the steps to declare war However, it is slightly contested among scholars as a majority of scholars agree that Presidents cannot instigate wars without the permission of Congress while a minority believes that the Declare War Clause only gives Congress the power to make formal declarations of war and as a result, the President can declare war.

To support this point, some scholars have looked carefully at the language of the clause and argued that the power to “declare war” can be thought of as a formal declaration and not the use of military force. As well, these scholars have looked into the historical practices of the clause: In response to attacks on American Ships in the Bey of Tripoli during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, Jefferson responded by sending ships to the Bey but instructed them to not attack the enemy ships and to only subdue them.

Jefferson felt that by commanding his ships to not attack the enemies, he wouldn’t be violating the Declare War Clause. In response to Jeffersons’ actions, former Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, stated that he found the clause to be vesting the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, but if another country had initiated a war, as the Tripolitans had in this case, then the country was already in a state of war and due to this, no declaration was needed to initiate war and use violence.

Using Jefferson’s actions and Hamilton’s view, scholars have argued that Presidents are allowed to deploy troops that are not involved in combat and initiate war if it is in response to attacks on the country. In the 1863 Prizes Case, the Supreme Court sustained President Lincoln’s blockade of southern states’ ports, without the permission of Congress, in response to the state’s attack on Fort Sumter. The court concluded that the blockade was constitutional because a state of war was in place as a result of the attack, therefore, the permission of Congress was not needed. The case clearly illustrates the President’s power to initiate war in the case of an attack on the country.

The Declare War Clause distinctly exhibits the separation of powers, which was heavily implemented by the French in their constitutions and it represents how both the American and French constitutions were heavily influenced by each country’s negative experiences under monarchs. I find that the scholars who believe that the Declare War Clause only gives Congress the ability to formally declare war are a minority for a reason: It seems backwards to think that the framers of the Constitution would not add a key separation of powers and that instead, that they were only talking about formalities.

I believe this because the concept of separation of powers is one of the backbones of the constitution and so I feel that it is more reasonable that this clause is using the concept. If I had the ability to amend the clause I would opt to add a section stating that the President cannot declare war unless the country has been attacked or they have the permission of Congress. I think this adds a lot of clarity and prevents any future President from feeling like they could not use the full force needed because they were trying to follow the clause so carefully. 

 

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

The Freedom of Speech Clause is found in the First Amendment and has been highly important since it was ratified in 1791, and continues to be relevant in the present day. The first amendment was created with the original intent to protect each individual’s values and their right to expression. The Freedom of Speech clause prevents the government from ridding the people of their own opinions and from having total control over the way the people are able to interact with others.

It is primarily to state the allowance for people to criticize their own government without retribution. In many countries people face severe repercussions for presenting judgment to their government but this clause enforces the people’s abilities to speak their mind. This amendment was first put in place because the people wanted a written document stating their rights. The Freedom of Speech Clause is commonly understood as the law that gives all people the right to express any idea or opinion they possess openly without any risk of punishment, no matter what the view may be.

Additionally, that they can display these thoughts freely in any manner of expression. But, what a lot of people don’t realize, is the specificity of the amendment and the limitations within it that it holds. This clause presents the right for all people to publicly share their ideas freely without the fear of being punished by the government.  However, the Freedom of Speech Clause does not just give all people the right to say whatever they please to whomever.

The limitation is that people are solely protected from consequences being given from the government, and not others. For example, people can still legally be fired from a job as a result of expressing an opinion unless they are government employees. Freedom of Speech is highly debated as it is disagreeable among many whether or not any ideas should be acceptable to be expressed. This clause has been and continues to be controversial with the argument over making exceptions for what cannot be said publicly.

Most can agree that hate speech and words evoking violence shouldn’t be presented. But it gets difficult to incorporate that message into a law as it is difficult to create the limitation as all people have different views and different definitions of what they find offensive or politically correct. With this clause, the speech that gets the strongest protection is political speech. Praise or criticism of any political happenings are almost always protected by the First Amendment.

It has what is classified as ‘Preferred Position’ which is that all regulations, laws, and executive acts that will limit political speech are almost always shut down by the courts. A very impactful court case on the freedom of speech was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1968. A Ku Klux Klan leader was delivering speeches that were extremely offensive and could be considered threatening to many people. Since it was political, the court ruled that it was protected by the First Amendment.

Something we also studied this year that can relate to the Freedom of Speech Clause is John Locke and his enlightenment ideas. Both were formed with the intention of giving more rights to the people. John Locke argued that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. The first amendment and John Locke’s enlightenment ideas share similar roots as they both allow people to have more agency and ability to express themselves. The Freedom of Speech Clause has impacted history greatly and continues to be relevant in the present day. 

Article II, Section 4 (Impeachment Clause)-Mira Gulati

Video

Written Component

The impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is one of the most important powers given to Congress. It embodies the key principles of separation of powers and checks and balances embedded in the document. These principles were created by Baron Montesquieu, an Enlightenment thinker, who said that separating the branches and holding each other accountable was essential to preventing abuse of power that denied people their liberty. 

The objective of the impeachment clause was to provide Congress with another safeguard for this abuse of power, stating that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  An earlier draft of the impeachment clause held that officials could be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or maladministration” James Madison and the Philadelphia delegates objected to the wording and said that its obscurity would result in unreasonable impeachments. As a result, the word ‘maladministration’ was removed in favor of ‘other high crimes and Misdemeanors’ With these new revisions, congress instituted a clause that allowed the House of Representatives to bring charges against any official that has committed a crime or worked against the will of the American people. The exclusion of ‘maladministration’ makes it clear that unfitness for the post is not a valid reason for impeachment. However, the full grounds for impeachment are still not clarified with the new phrase and the meaning of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is still debated today. 

The different interpretations came into play during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1999. The impeachment arrived after it was revealed that Clinton had lied under oath about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The Senate, however, did not find him guilty of the counts of perjury and obstruction of justice Many Democrats advocated that while Clinton’s behavior was morally punishable, it did not affect the public so it did not constitute impeachment. That it was not a ‘high crime’ On the other side of the aisle, Republicans argued that his actions betrayed the trust of the nation and were therefore liable for conviction. 

The Clinton case raised a lot of questions surrounding the conduct of government officials. Many people wondered whether he set a precedent that only wrongdoing related to the President’s decisions involving the nation would constitute an impeachment. Whether only crimes prosecutable by court apply to the clause or misconduct and dishonor did too. If the original clause is to be maintained, only time and more impeachments will answer it. 

An alternate solution, however, lies in an amendment that would revise the last phrase of the Constitution so that the ‘high’ in ‘high crimes’ is removed. This would help clarify whether any crime that an official commits is applicable for impeachment. It does not make sense to have a range of crimes that an official is allowed to commit as they need to be held to the same standards as everyone else in America. The system of checks and balances that are meant to retain the citizen’s liberty holds no power if they do not.

Kavi Bharara- The Commerce Clause

Video

Written Component

The years following the declaration of independence and the adoption of the Constitution, marked incredible economic fragmentation and disorder among the 13 different states. The nation’s economy was deeply divided by the conflicting state legislations and trade policies/agreements, leading to a lack of cohesion and efficiency. Such economic turmoil and dissatisfaction voiced a need for changes to be implemented. 

Consequently, to address the intertwined economic and commercial challenges existing within states, the Commerce Clause was implemented into Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Essentially, the clause allows the United States Congress to regulate commercial activity and trade among states, foreign nations and Native American tribes. This shift of power to the central federal congress promotes a free market/enterprise among states and a unified framework for overseeing this interstate commerce. The clause also evidently creates a more level playing field among individual states, as it prohibits any regulations or laws at a state level that would interfere with national economic growth. Ever since its implementation back in 1789 however, the Commerce Clause has been subject to extensive interpretation and debate. The extent of congress’ ability to exercise such legislative power of state commerce, has been a part of an ongoing controversy, particularly in the context of conflicting Federalist/Anti Federalist ideals. As the framers never explicitly defined the word “commerce”, a wide-range of arguments and debates have ensued over what powers are exactly granted to congress. Some argue that the word reflects a narrow, limited definition of simply trade and exchange, while others claim it contains a more broad meaning of commercial and even social intercourses. While both interpretations have been argued, in our history, courts have generally adopted a border interpretation of the clause; for better or worse. Most notably, in the 1824 Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden, the court ruled that Congress could regulate all interstate commerce and forbid any state legislation that would interfere with this power; an illustration of outright congressional power over states. How might this have sat with passionate anti-federalist thinkers who advocated for stronger state powers and were apprehensive of such a centralized federal power? In addition, a few years prior this, in 1808, the Commerce Clause was utilized to a broad extent when it gave Congress the power to abolish the slave trade with other nations; an example of the clause extending beyond economic matters to address significant social issues.   

It is important to note however, that the clause has also been witness to more narrow interpretations by the Supreme Court, particularly in a period between 1905 and 1907. During this period, courts explored the notion that the Commerce Clause did not grant Congress the power to implement laws obstructing an individual’s right to business contracts. Following this period however, courts began to return to overarching broad interpretations of the clause. 

 Evidently, the implications of the Commerce Clause have had a lasting impact on not only the political and economic landscape of the nation, but also its social fabric. We have seen its merits become invoked across an array of social contexts including desegregation, addressing interstate discriminatory practices and even slavery; all topics covered/witnessed in this curriculum. With that being said, due to its established precedent and overall positive social effect, the broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a more compelling, transformative argument. 

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.

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.

Amalia – The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was an agreement of the populous that there should be no federally established church. This decision was reached because before the revolution the Church of England was federally mandated in the southern colonies, while the northern colonies had their Puritan establishments. These different establishments bred dissenters, who were often punished for preaching without a license or refusing to pay taxes to a church they disagreed with. The topic of religion caused conflict in the years before the revolution, dividing the people of this new country instead of bringing them together under one previously imagined, now real, community and shared identity.

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights is commonly understood to have prohibited the government from establishing a state-mandated or federal religion for the nation, effectively separating church and state in the United States. 

This clause has been publicly understood to have separated the church and state in the United States, however many people have had interpretations of this clause as it regards government funding and government-sponsored prayer. Many of the matters of debate that spawn from this clause connect to religion and how it should interact with public education, all according to how the courts interpret the constitution. In relation to government funding, some argue the government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious institutions that provide education or other social services. Others argue that taxpayer funds shouldn’t be given to religious institutions if they might be used to further religious ideas because it violates the separation between church and state that the clause set in place. Through Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Board of Education v. Allen (1968) all students of religious schools gained access to transportation and textbook funds. As well, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) deemed it unconstitutional under free speech and free exercise principles to exclude otherwise eligible recipients from government assistance because their activity is religious in nature. On the topic of government-sanctioned prayer the courts determined it unconstitutional for public schools to lead students in religious activities, even voluntary in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). These decisions, though controversial to much of the public, were not to the Justices: it would have been seen as government sponsored religion which goes against the Establishment Clause’s separation between church and state.

The Establishment Clause protects citizens rights to practicing their religion freely, without persecution, also ensuring that the government of the United States isn’t biased towards certain religions. This clause ensures that the obligatory religion that the colonists experienced under the monarchy could not happen in their new nation. The Establishment Clause also protects those facing religious persecution. With religious tolerance being written as an amendment to the Constitution, America became a place of refuge for those experiencing religious oppression; many Jewish people in the early 20th century who fled pogroms (planned massacres of Jewish people in eastern Europe) were able to make a safe life for themselves and their families in the United States. The religious tolerance that the Establishment Clause implemented has had a long lasting impact on the peoples and cultures that make up America to this day as well as how cases pertaining to religion are handled in federal Courts.

Amendment V – The Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The right to due process clause of the Fifth amendment in the Constitution guarantees that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without undergoing due process of law. This clause originated in a desire to protect individuals from excessive governmental power and secure fundamental rights. American colonists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, and property seizures without a fair trial under British rule. Evidence of their discontent under British rule is evident in situations such as the Shaysite Grievances. The clause was a response to the oppressive practices of British rule and a reflection of the belief that no one should be forced to incriminate themselves or suffer without proper legal procedures.

 

The clause states that individuals have the right to a fair trial in a court of law, a defense attorney, and freedom from self-incrimination. This is known as procedural due process. The concept of “life, liberty, and property” in the clause connects to our discussions of ideas that originated from the Enlightenment. It had many thinkers who argued that people have unalienable rights, including John Locke, responsible for “The Second Treatise of Government”, where the quote “life, liberty, and possession” can be seen. He argued that these were basic human rights, and his words heavily influenced colonists to rebel against British rule. They were thus integrated into the documents that were made when the nation was founded, such as the Constitution.

 

However, there has been controversy to what extent the justice department can exercise the overturning of laws. This is where a term called “substantive due process” arises. It is a legal argument that attempts to interpret how much the due process clause of the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the text. The clause implies that the government cannot infringe on the rights of life, liberty, or property, even if no specific provision explicitly defines those terms. They recognize that individuals possess inherent rights that are fundamental to their liberty, such as the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and freedom of expression. However, it has been a subject of controversy, since some argue that it grants too little power to the judiciary branch. Others argue that substantive due process is essential in ensuring that the government does not restrict fundamental rights. The divergent interpretations revolve around the extent of due process protections, particularly concerning balance between individual rights and societal interests. 

 

A case that is illustrative of the tensions around substantive due process is Roe V Wade. Recently, the case has been a controversial discussion regarding the right to abortion. This is where substantive due process becomes a significant basis for the argument that there is a fundamental right to privacy that the government should not have the authority to restrict.  In 1973, it was decided that privacy encompasses a woman’s right to have an abortion based on these principles. The case has arisen again after the ruling was overturned, but this clause is still a justification that women have a right to bodily autonomy. 

 

At present, this clause does not require amending, because it ensures that everyone is granted a fair trial with an impartial jury and a defense attorney. Altering a clause that has historically protected so many from having their rights limited by excessive governmental control could be detrimental to the concept of the Fifth amendment itself. 

Ava – Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

The historical forces giving rise to this excerpt of text likely are the framers of the Constitution’s consideration of different political ideas. Looking back, especially on the Revolutionary War, the Americans remembered what tyranny could be like, and they wanted to be sure that the accusation of treason wasn’t simply something used to silence people with plans that could help America develop into a more experienced and peaceful nation.

The commonly understood meaning of Article III, section III beyond the obvious ‘don’t commit treason’ is that the United States discourages treason charges being thrown around, so an accuser needs two witnesses with testimonials or a full confession. Also, Congress is essentially in charge of deciding punishments for treason. However, the punishment should not extend beyond the accused to their family, or last longer than the accused lives.

This particular provision has been interpreted in separate ways involving, firstly, the modern impact of treason. There have been barely any people accused of treason for a long time because of the specifications in the Constitution and the qualifications of the legitimate charge of treason. However, sometimes people are convicted of similar crimes, such as espionage, and still handled like a treason case, even going as far as to call the accused a traitor.

This is important especially considering the way the treason clause was written to add some protection, and so going away from the formal accusation of treason removes any of the padding that was originally included in the Constitution. A supreme court case at the center of this small dispute is Rosenberg v. United States, which involves Julius and Ethel Rosenberg being accused of espionage and not treason. However, even though the charge was espionage, the judge and prosecutors essentially combined the charges, informally suggesting that the Rosenbergs had committed treason.

The Rosenbergs’ case became known when they began to insist that this was a violation of the Constitution because they were essentially facing the consequences of treason without any of the specifications of the Constitution. This is illustrative of the debate of the legitimacy of treason as a charge and surrounding rules because it brings up why the framers of the Constitution may have included every word they chose to write about the legal punishments for treason. This provision connects to other concepts discussed this year mainly in the Enlightenment with philosophers.

Mainly, the center of this section is John Locke in his ideas of a person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. This section gets into exactly what the punishment should be, and who should decide, ensuring that no one’s right to liberty or property is denied beyond a reasonable point, so that the punishment is fair and fit to the crime itself. I find the treason clause to still be very relevant and its mention of heredity and forfeiture is very persuasive and important. 

Sophie Saxl- The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

Sophie Saxl

Constitution Project Write- Up: The Due Process Clause

6/2/23

 

The Magna Carta, a charter of rights issued in 1215 by King John of England, introduces the concept of due process in its 39th chapter, stating that no free man should be taken under arrest without a fair judgment by his peers. Due process sets an important standard of fairness and a just protection of all parties in legal proceedings. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in the U.S. Constitution ensures the right to a fair, thorough, and lawfully judged legal and administrative process to every person in court.

There are two aspects of the Due Process Clause: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process is the right to decisions involving the government being made through a fair and impartial process which includes fair notice, the opportunity to be heard and a fair presentation and examination of evidence for all parties. It is widely supported and uncontroversial. Substantive due process is much more debated, as it puts more limits on governmental authority, allowing courts to protect certain fundamental rights relating to “life, liberty and property,” as the Fifth Amendment states. Supporters of the theory of substantive due process often claim that it is the best way to protect fundamental human rights, including those not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Legal scholars against the theory argue that the concept upsets the balance of power specifically outlined between the branches of the U.S. government, giving an unwarranted amount of power to the courts. This argument also asserts that substantive due process would give courts unlimited power of review over what rights are to be protected. This argument is based on the idea that the only rights protected are those stated in the Constitution. 

Due process is frequently brought up in Supreme Court cases, with one early example being in the extremely controversial Lochner vs. New York. In this case, a bakery owner, Joseph Lochner, was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act, a law setting a maximum of 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week allowed to be worked by bakery employees. Lochner argued that due process should be interpreted to contain freedom of contract covered by substantive due process. Even though Lochner referenced the Due Process Clause applying to states in the Fourteenth Amendment, he uses the same conceptual argument that applies to the Fifth Amendment. While Lochner was later overturned, substantive due process has continued to be debated in privacy cases.

The Due Process Clause is a manifestation of a crucial enlightenment ideal: natural rights. John Locke’s ideas on natural rights hold a close connection to the Due Process Clause, down to the specific wording. In his “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” Locke asserts that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions,” using nearly identical wording to the clause itself: “life, liberty, and property.”

The argument around substantive due process draws back to a central point of debate in interpreting the Constitution: should judgment be based on the intent of the framers, or on the relevance today? I believe that the Constitution can only be read as a document made to change with time, because the Constitution is adaptable to different times, as proven by the built-in amendment process outlined in the Constitution.