ii

Amendment II

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment or popularly known as The Right to Bear Arms was originally created to allow citizens to protect themselves against the attacks of the militaries of other nations. When the amendment was created the United States had just fought Britain and was worried that Britain would retaliate against them at any moment.   The amendment was created because it would take too long to get the national military together to fight back against surprise attacks. However, since its original creation, the interpretation of this amendment has changed significantly. In the modern day, many perceive this amendment to say that citizens are allowed to own guns.  

One side to the argument is that the Second Amendment should stay as long as it is used to the original purpose of the amendment.   Because the amendment was vague, many people misunderstood the amendment and each person understood it in a different way. Questions have risen over parts of the amendment that were not mentioned in the constitution such as the right to bear arms in public and which type of guns were allowed to be owned by a common citizen.  

The other side to the argument is that similar to the First Amendment there is a point where reason overrules the amendment. For example, despite the notion that there is freedom of speech, one cannot commit perjury or fraud. Also despite the right to bear arms one cannot possess a nuclear bomb.   Many agree with the amendment in which it means that a law abiding citizen can own a gun and protect themselves against opposing governments or criminals. The controversy begins with which type of guns can be owned and by who. Many people who disagree with the Second Amendment believe that guns can be allowed to be owned by citizens but it should be more difficult to purchase a gun.  

Originally there was a law in Washington DC that stated that all guns must be registered and that all guns stored at home must be unloaded and locked. Police Officer Dick Anthony Heller was denied the right to own a handgun but was denied. He then sued the District of Columbia.   The supreme court reversed this law as it was a violation of the Second Amendment. This shows that even hundreds of years after the creation of the constitution, the constitution is still looked at to decide laws around guns.  

While I believe that this amendment should remain, I think that there needs to be stricter guidelines and restrictions around who can own guns where they can carry them. For example I think that it should be more difficult to purchase a gun and if you are not a part of the military or a police officer, it should be illegal to possess a gun outside of your property. While in many areas it is already illegal to carry a loaded gun, the punishment for doing so should be harsher.

Ongoing Debate with Impeachment, Article II Section IV – Holden MacDougall

Video

Written Component

Amendment II Section IV, “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.”

The American Revolution resolved in a separation from Britain and gave rise to the need for a new governmental structure without a monarch. In an attempt to create a decentralized government with separate and interdependent powers, the framers viewed it as necessary to give congress the power of impeachment. It is a part of the system of checks and balances.

This clause is responding to fears of unchecked and tyrannical power in the government, as well as ideas brought about by the absolutist monarchy french revolution. It also echoes theories of John Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. The commonly understood meaning of the impeachment clause is that a government official of the United States (typically a federal judge, President, or Vice President.) can be impeached and removed from office if convicted of committing a serious crime and/or abuse of office. Various interpretations of the impeachment clause arise when one considers the type of crime being committed, and whether that crime relates to the public office or private life of the accused person.

An interpretation that would make impeachment a over powerful political weapon is if impeachment concerned both the public and private life of a government official, and if any forms of misconduct or misbehavior were accepted as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. A narrower interpretation considers only treason, bribery, and crimes committed relating to a government official’s public office to be an impeachable offense. Some scholars believe that a broad interpretation of the impeachment power would allow a single political party or opponent to potentially abuse this power to eliminate select people  by convicting them of vague forms of misconduct.

This would make impeachment also a very powerful tool for Congress ( more specifically the senate, which has the power to try all impeachments). The case, Nixon v. United States (1993), involved the debate over impeachment and the power it gives to the Senate. The ruling affirms that impeachment power is solely assigned to the Senate and House of Representatives. This case relates to the debate over the interpretation of  “high crimes and misdemeanors” and how much power this phrase could give to those in the Senate. Since Nixon v. United States deemed Senate impeachment trials ‘non-justiciable’, meaning that they are not able to be resolved through law alone, it indicates that impeachment trials concern acts that do not fall under the law, rather are acts of misconduct, which highlights the importance of defining what acts are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

This provision connects to the writings of Montesquieu, who argued for separation of powers in government, because the impeachment power is part of a system of checks and balances that is core to the U.S. constitution, and to Rousseau, who expressed that government should serve the general will of the people, because impeachment concerns those whom the people elect the government. I find the interpretation that ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ mentioned article II, section IV only concern matters of public office that harm the well-being of the citizens more persuasive than impeachment on the grounds of a matter of private life because, like with any job, a person is typically fired based acts committed and relating to the workplace that affects their job and the company, rather than because of acts associated with one’s private life.

I would advocate amending the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. This area is the primary source of divergent interpretations of this clause because of its vagueness, so amending it would help to clarify the types of crimes worthy of impeachment.

The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment to the Constitution grants citizens of the United States of America the right to bear arms. The reason behind the passing of the second amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to maintain a standing army. Many U.S citizens feared that if there were a standing army, the government would use soldiers to oppress citizens. This fear was generated because of the British troops occupying several parts of America at the time. The Quartering Act obliges U.S citizens to allow wandering troops to remain on their properties, causing unnecessary complications in the lives of many U.S colonists. These troops were viewed as a burden and citizens feared that members of a standing U.S army would abuse their liberties just as so. In order to prevent soldiers from causing harm to U.S citizens, the Framers decided that the government should only be allowed to raise full-time, paid army troops when needed to fight foreign opposition. For other needs such as protection from invasions, the government would rely on a citizen led militia. This militia would be made up of men supplying their own weapons in order to protect the nation. 

The original purpose of the second amendment was to allow citizens to bear their own weapons when serving in the military forces in the United States. However, the most common interpretation is that the amendment grants all citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment can be easily misunderstood because of lack of clarity. Legal scholars often argue that, because of the lack of clarity, the amendment is able to be interpreted in multiple ways. If I were to explain the second amendment to someone in conversation, I would explain that it grants all U.S citizens the right to bear arms. While I do not believe that this was the original purpose of the amendment, I do believe that this is how it reads. If I were to offer a slight change in the second amendment, I would suggest more specific wording in order to directly relay the purpose. However, because of recent events and increase in gun violence, I do not believe that average citizens should be offered the right to bear arms at all, and I would limit the amendment to those serving in governmental organizations such as the military or the police force.   

 

Elsa Dees- Article II: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 delineates the impeachment terms for the president, vice president and other civil officers of the United States. This impeachment clause stems from both English Parliamentary practice and American Colonial Law. In Britain, Parliament had the ability to challenge the power of the crown, ministers, and the king’s favorites due to political offenses. The colonies also had their own impeachment procedures, which held officials accountable for political crimes. In both cases, impeachment proceedings were part of a process that separated powers and allowed the legislative branch to check the executive, counteracting tyranny. (1)

The common interpretation of Article II, Section 4 is that all federal officials can be tried, impeached, and removed from office for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This provision can be interpreted in divergent ways because of the vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which provides latitude for the House to determine what offenses can be considered grounds for impeachment. While this clause does not allow the House to impeach an official for incompetence, it provides the House with great flexibility to impeach a federal official for a crime or abuse of power.

The impeachment process first begins when the House conducts an impeachment inquiry. Thereafter, the House must pass, by simple majority, the articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegations against the official. If the House passes the articles, the federal official is considered impeached. The Senate then conducts the trial of the impeached official. If supported by two-thirds of the Senate, the official is convicted and removed from office. (2)

Over the course of U.S. history, a very small number of government officials have been impeached and a much smaller number have been convicted and removed from office. Most officials under scrutiny have decided to voluntarily resign from their positions or have been removed by their superiors. Three presidents – Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump – have been impeached by the House, with Trump twice, but none have been convicted by the Senate. In late 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury during an investigation about pre-presidency financial deals and obstruction of justice. During the Senate trial, numerous senators raised questions about whether President Clinton’s actions were “high crimes and misdemeanors.” President Clinton was ultimately not convicted when the Senate did not reach the required two-thirds supermajority. (3)

Impeachment connects to revolutionary ideas and questions of checks and balances, stopping tyranny and injustice, and making sure that the power resides with the people, or in this case, the House of Representatives. While there is debate about the vague definition of the impeachable offenses, I would not amend this clause because a narrow and specific definition would be easier to avoid and would not provide for changes in laws and offenses. This vague provision leaves more room for the House and the Senate to make decisions on what is morally correct and the appropriate punishments.

  1. “ArtII.S4.4.2 Historical Background on Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/.

  2. “About Impeachment,” United States Senate, https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm.

  3.  “ArtII.S4.4.8 President Bill Clinton and Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-8/ALDE_00000696/.

2nd Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment was written because of a mix of fear of a British invasion and basic mistrust of professional soldiers. With this fear the government decided to add an amendment to the constitution to allow for states to have a militia that allowed them to protect against foreign and domestic enemies without the government being able to stop them.

This was of course before the US had a real military though we do still have something similar to the state militias in the national guard. When it comes to interpreting things into something completely different than the original meaning nothing out does the second amendment the original text reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course the common interpretation is very different and seems to commonly be everyone in America has the right to own and operate guns without restriction. Because of this so many different opinions and meanings have been debated but to simplify them all i’m going to make three sections: red, purple and blue, the red and blue of course pointing to the extremes not everyone’s views.

The red opinion is that everybody should have guns and that gun regulation will not work whatsoever and is an ineffective solution that we should not try to implement. The purple is more of a middle ground opinion basically saying that we should still allow people to own guns but impose strict regulation to purchase and usage like mental illness, age and criminal record.

And finally the blue this opinion is basically that we should ban all guns as allowing for people to own them is inherently dangerous. Of course the debates made by legal scholars are mainly centered around if the Second Amendment had focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard, this can be seen in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

This can of course be connected to the American revolution as the point of the amendment was to allow states to protect themselves. I find the purple opinion the most persuasive as it is a good middle ground that has the highest probability of being agreed upon because though it is not a perfect solution it is one that everyone can agree on. And when it comes to changing the amendment well, I would re-word the entire amendment to be much more specific in the case of gun regulations: specify how they are different for active members of the military and specify the restrictions age and other that are required for owning each separate type of gun.

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.