noah

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

 The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

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.