constitution-project

Commerce Clause – Eileen Li

Video

Written Component

Context

In 1781, five years after the colonies became free from British rule, the Articles of Confederation were implemented. This document was an agreement between the 13 states that attempted to establish the functions of the national government. The Articles allowed each state to have power over their own trade. They worked independently and competitively against each other, and even established trade barriers. Congress was prohibited from regulating any commerce, so the rising inflation rates could not be controlled, and America’s economy grew weak. In response to these economic problems, a convention was held in 1789. 

 

Common interpretation

The Commerce Clause was formed here, which gave Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This clause is commonly interpreted as giving Congress power to regulate international and interstate commerce, and trade with Indian Tribes, as well as prohibit states from interfering with Congress’ decisions. 

 

Matters of Debate

However, the undefined meanings of the words “to regulate”, “commerce” and “among the several States” make this clause open to interpretation. For example, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the word “commerce” was argued to include people, not just goods. Thomas Gibbons, given permission by the federal government to operate steamboats between New York City and the New Jersey coast, sued Aaron Ogden, who was backed up by the State of New York to do the same, after Gibbons was denied access to these waterways. In the end, the Court ruled in Gibbon’s favor. The argument was that the definition of “commerce” included the people carried in steamboats, so steamboats would be considered as commerce, and the powers of Congress from the Commerce Clause could be applied. The reasoning of Chief Justice Marshall was that “commerce” was not only buying and selling, but also intercourse and thus navigation. 

Another matter of debate was introduced in United States v. Darby, where the meanings of “to regulate” and “among the several States” were expanded. The FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) was passed in 1938, and set minimum wages, maximum hours, etc. Darby, a lumber manufacturer, was arrested after shipping lumber out of state while violating the FLSA. In this case, the Court reaffirmed this Act to be constitutional, which gave Congress the power to prohibit manufacturing goods inside states with the FLSA. Another reason why Congress was given this power was because intrastate commerce would affect interstate commerce, which the government was already in charge of by the Commerce Clause. Previously, the common interpretations of “to regulate” and “among the several States” led to Congress regulating commerce between two or more states. However, these meanings were expanded in the case of United States v. Darby, giving Congress the power to regulate interstate and now intrastate commerce.

 

Significance

The concepts of the Commerce Clause connect to some ideas of early modern enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau, as they both emphasized the importance of a strong central government. Personally, I would not change this clause because I think this idea is extremely important. If Congress wasn’t in charge of states’ trade, the free market wouldn’t exist, and America’s economy would worsen.

Leila – The Third Amendment

Video

Written Component

 

The Third Amendment

The Third Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, providing that soldiers cannot stay in American citizens’ private homes without the homeowners’ consent. It was in response to British soldiers taking over colonists’ homes without the owners’ approval during the colonial period. The British had passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774 which made the colonists’ lives and the intrusion of the British soldiers into their homes even worse.

These Acts stated that colonists had to house soldiers in barracks, and, if that was not an option, soldiers would come into people’s homes where their necessities would be provided and paid for. These Acts also stated that British soldiers could take over uninhabited buildings and barns, allowing even more spaces to be commandeered by the British. The colonists saw this as an invasion of property and privacy. In addition, many soldiers were sick with diseases including smallpox. The Third Amendment was a response to these Acts, and an important protection for private property, life and privacy. 

There are several interpretations of the philosophy behind the Third Amendment. One interpretation focuses on the Third Amendment as giving more power to civilians than the militia or the government. Another interpretation centers on the right to privacy. These themes are consistent with concepts supported by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke who promoted similar ideas about Natural Rights, regarding a limited government and protected rights of the people such as life, liberty and property.  Locke believed that governments should be based on these ideas.

Although the Third Amendment comes up infrequently in case law, it has been brought up in a few legal cases. In Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965, a case about the right of married people to purchase birth control, the Amendment is cited as a protection of Americans’ privacy. In cases related to abortion, the Third Amendment has been used to argue that abortion rights are protected by inference in the Constitution. [1] Specifically, the Third Amendment protects privacy rights, and freedom from government interference in people’s homes. This is important because a right to “privacy” is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. Challengers to abortion rights often argue that since the specific right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, cases that protect important human rights under a “privacy” analysis can be overruled. The Third Amendment gives some weight to privacy protections though often does not apply to cases not involving soldiers and homes. An interesting modern interpretation even speaks to the right to “freedom from infection” contained in the Third Amendment. [2]  One question would be if the Third Amendment served its purpose. If it was truly intended to protect privacy why didn’t it state that more clearly. A house is just a place, but a home is a place where you are free with privacy.

    1.  The Bill of Rights Institute, “Griswold v Connecticut (1965),” The Bill of Rights Institute, 2023, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.
    2. Alexander Zhang, “The Forgotten Third Amendment Could Give Pandemic-Struck America a Way Forward,” The Atlantic, May 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/could-third-amendment-protect-against-infection/616791/.

(It wouldn’t do the proper indenting) 

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible. 



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.

 

Augie Emmanuel Article 2, Section 4: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

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

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

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

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

 

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. 

Alex – The Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Context

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Eighth Amendment states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The history of the ideas in this clause can be traced back to even before the Articles of Confederation were written; in 1689, the British government adopted a bill of rights that included protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The original United States Constitution did not offer the same protection, instead giving the federal government the power to create federal crimes and punish perpetrators. However, many opponents of the Constitution expressed the fear that giving Congress this power would eventually lead to corruption and the use of punishment as a method of oppression. As such, the Constitution was amended to include protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

Common Interpretation

As suggested by its title, the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress from imposing unjustifiably harsh punishments on criminal defendants. This protection can be divided into two categories: cruel and unusual punishment, which refers to penalties that involve unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering, and disproportionate punishment, which refers to penalties that are disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed. “Cruel and unusual punishments” are commonly interpreted as punishments that are fundamentally barbaric or lack a legitimate penological purpose; these are the types of punishments that would violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the courts’ definition of what constitutes excessive barbarism has shifted throughout the time since the Eighth Amendment was ratified.

 

Matters for Debate

The vague language of the Eighth Amendment has allowed for certain debates to consistently surface in contemporary discussions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. One of these debates questions what the current standard is for determining if a punishment is barbaric enough to violate the Eighth Amendment—whether the most important consideration is what was accepted when the Amendment was ratified in 1791, current public opinion, or the subjective morality of the courts. One progressive argument relies on the concept of “evolving standards of decency,” which asserts that the Court should consider contemporary shifts in societal attitudes and public opinion, rather than the originally intended meanings of America’s Founding Fathers. However, another prominent argument is that a punishment can be judged by its length of practice; essentially, a punishment deemed acceptable by multiple generations of Americans is still Constitutional until it falls out of practice for multiple generations, at which point it can be labeled cruel and unusual.  

 

Significance

Some of the ideas in the Constitution, but particularly in the Eighth Amendment, reflect ideas expressed by John Locke in his writing. Locke asserted that individuals possess certain inalienable rights, and that the primary purpose of the government is to protect these rights. As such, he proposed a separation of powers in order to ensure no one branch of government becomes too powerful and threatens individual liberty. This is, in essence, the goal of the Eighth Amendment: to ensure the federal government does not have enough power to oppress individuals through cruel and unusual punishment.

Article V // Gabe Ponichter

Video

Written Component

In Article V, the Constitution’s framers gave America’s future leaders a way to make changes to the Constitution based on changing times of the future. In simpler terms, Article V of the Constitution says that If two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives agree, they can put amendments for the Constitution to vote. Another way amendments could be proposed is if 2 thirds of all the state legislatures agree to present some during a convention. To approve amendments, either ¾ of all the state legislatures must agree or ¾ of conventions convened in each state, based on Congress’ choice. There are two caveats; amendments to the Constitution could not change the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article of the Constitution until 1808. Additionally, amendments could not strip a state of its right to vote in the Senate unless that state would be partial as well. Being able to make amendments to the Constitution allowed for debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists to be settled by compromising on amendments eventually being added to the Constitution. Leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, there was one principal opinion about making amendments to the Constitution held by some Anti-Federalists. These people, looking to ensure enough power for the states and the people rather than just the central government, supported Article V because, through amendments, a Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution, guaranteeing basic protections for Americans. 

Throughout the more recent history of Article V, some controversy has arisen over whether or not states can rescind their ratifications of certain amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not expressly state that states can do this; however, in the case of amendments like the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of 1972, which was never ratified, six states still voted to rescind their ratification. In the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court decided it would be at Congress’s discretion to determine whether a state could rescind its ratification, seemingly on a case-by-case basis. In the ERA’s case, it became irrelevant that states rescinded their ratifications because the amendment was not passed before the 7-year limit agreed upon in Congress. However, through countless decisions like Kirchberg v. Feenstra (1981) or J.E.B v. Alabama (1994), the Supreme Court was able to achieve the same effect of the ERA, declaring it unconstitutional for women to be discriminated against by American laws. The ability to make amendments to the Constitution connects to the core values of the Enlightenment Period, in which modifications to the thought of the “old regimes” were necessary for the common people to gain knowledge and a voice for themselves. As such, Historians can view Article V as a reassurance that if changes need to be made to the Constitution to protect the agency of Americans, they can be made, just like the Bill of Rights first did during America’s creation.

 

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions on Women’s Rights.” In ACLU Women’s Rights Project. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/101917a-wrptimeline_0.pdf.

 

Annenberg Classroom. “The Annenberg Guide to the United States Constitution.” Annenberg Classroom. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/constitution/.

 

Rappaport, Michael B., and David A. Strauss. “Interpretation and Debate: Article V.” National Constitution Center. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-v/interpretations/277.