section-4

The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is generally known as the Guarantee Clause because it guarantees a republican form of government, generally known to be a government run by the people through elections. The clause also ensures the federal government’s protection of states against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, but this is not its primary function as this power is already conferred elsewhere in the Constitution.

Crucially, the guarantee of a republican form of government is commonly understood to require majority rule for all individual states. This correlation between a republican government and majority rule is expressed in Federalist No. 57, which says that “[t]he elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government”, indicating that majority rule is a necessary component of any form of republican government. Hence, this clause limits the type of government a state may have by preventing any state from imposing any type of monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through a majority vote. Instead, the Guarantee Clause requires a government created by majority election. 

Although the clause requires each state to have a republican form of government, it importantly does not speak to the details of that government, explicitly leaving state legislatures to decide voting qualifications (Article I, Sections 2 & 4). The Guarantee Clause was created because delegates of the Constitutional Convention feared a monarchy arising in a particular state and establishing tyranny over the entire US.

However, the Framers’ decision to leave the voting qualifications up to the states has resulted in considerable debate over whether or not the federal government has consistently guaranteed majority rule in the states. Some legal scholars believe that the US’s acceptance of the disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after Reconstruction was a failure to uphold the Guarantee Clause. After the Civil War, African Americans were a majority of the population in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, and 40 percent or more in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. However, African Americans were systematically disenfranchised, particularly in places where they were majorities.

The tension of balancing minority rule while maintaining a republican form of government was on display in the 1896 Mississippi Supreme Court case, Ratliff v. Beale. In this case, the court explained that after the civil war, Mississippi’s government was in a period in which the government was controlled primarily by recently enfranchised Blacks, and then, through a white uprising, moved into being controlled and administered by the white minority overseeing a Black majority. In this case, the court attempts to justify this contradictory governmental structure by denouncing the African Americans as “unfitted by educational experience for the responsibility thrust upon [them].”

Though states are allowed to change voting qualifications by the Constitution, some legal historians believe that the Guarantee Clause does not allow states to instate minority rule, making the disenfranchisement of African Americans unconstitutional. 

I would advocate for an amendment to the Guarantee Clause to make it more robust and direct. As this clause has not been particularly debated within the Supreme Court, my amendment would aim to improve the effectiveness of the Guarantee Clause rather than absolve states concerns. I would amend the clause to clarify the criteria for what constitutes a “republican form of government” and provide more guidance on the powers and limitations of the federal government in guaranteeing and maintaining republican government in states. This amendment would prevent cases like Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912) from succeeding in permitting various forms of direct democracy permitted by state law.

The Supreme Court refused to invalidate these governments on the grounds that they did not violate the Guarantee Clause. A more precise amendment would make these distinctions more clear. As well as changing the rulings on these types of cases, a clarified version of the Guarantee Clause would have perhaps limited or even prevented the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in former Confederate states after the Civil War. The disenfranchisement of African Americans after the Civil War had long-lasting consequences, perpetuating racial inequality, political exclusion, economic disadvantages, and systemic racism in the United States. 

Jacob Sorett – Article 1 Section 4 The Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause was made to solely manage the election of the House and Senate, not the president. According to, Micheal T. Morley and Franita Tolson, it was written to ensure that all states hold elections for Congress and that their procedures for said elections are fair.

 The main purpose of the text is to balance the power of the state and of Congress in voting for representatives. More specifically, the clause is known to establish that each state can set its own conditions in which voting takes place, but that these conditions can be lawfully changed by Congress. 

Even with a common interpretation of the election clause, there are several divergent perspectives about its contents. An example of the above would be how some states more widely distribute power and create “independent redistricting commissions”. This was done in order to prevent the division of voters and keep current members of Congress in their offices. This viewpoint includes the idea of “independent redistricting commissions” being ideal for the Elections Clause for it displays that there is a fairer way to hold elections than what the clause outlines. An example specifically in the court would be Cook v. Gralike. Don Gralike came before the court and argued for the Congressional Term Limit Amendment. It permitted for warnings to be written next to the names of previously elected representatives who opposed Congressional term limits.

However, the supreme court declared that the Elections Clause prevents the state from doing so due to how the amendment is clearly biased towards candidates that support term limits. This serves as a perfect example of different interpretations of the election clause. From the perspective of the court, the Elections Clause should protect members of Congress by preventing the state from going against officials opposing term limits. From the perspective of Don Gralike, the clause allows for the state to still express the manner in which the process is done, and this manner he believes should include warnings next to candidates’ names.

Another case where the Elections Clause was debated was U.S. Term Limits, Inc, v. Thornton. The side of Thorton argued that states should be able to neglect to print the names of candidates who had served in Congress for three terms. Again the supreme court prevented this and declared that the Elections Clause requires all candidates to be displayed on ballots. The supreme court had yet again ruled in favor of Congress and its present officers, once again displaying the court’s interpretation of the clause. 

I find the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the election clause to be more reasonable and persuasive. The Elections Clause’s ultimate goal is to give Congress the power to keep the state in check, preventing unfair and corrupt voting procedures. With more lenient interpretations this is not the case, and this includes arguments such as the one in Cook v. Gralike. States shouldn’t be allowed to make such changes that are clearly in favor of specific candidates, and I think that the view of the supreme court entails this point. If I were to amend this clause, I would allow Congress to alter where the votes are made, as the Elections Clause currently bands this. The state could manage to make change the voting turnout by setting the location of the ballots to specific places. For example, if the state of New York changed all of its ballot locations to extremely far upstate, that would not reflect the vast majority of New York’s votes. This is because most residents don’t live upstate. I think Congress should be able to regulate this to ensure the right amount of voter turnout. 

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/.

Giselle Barker – Final Constitution Project, Article 2, Section 4

Video

Written Component

The second article in the Constitution constrains the elements of the executive branch, which is one of the three established in the Constitution. The fourth section in the article, gives power to the people by allowing impeachment to elected officials, as well as allows the other branches to check the executive system. The section states that reasons for impeachment can be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, the motivation for including this within the Constitution is to prevent any corruption from taking place in office.

This connects back to the fear that many Americans and public leaders had of undergoing the American Revolution again because of the abuse of power from King George. The common understanding of section 4 is that Congress has the power to vote on the removal of the President, Vice President, or other elected officials.

However, matters of debate on the clarity of this section of the article have been interpreted differently, the particular line “high crimes and Misdemeanors” have been regarded as not specific enough to be a claim. Since high crimes and misdemeanors could include misdemeanors as small as littering to a first-degree misdemeanor charge, many scholars debate that this statement is too vague and could mean that littering could qualify as an impeachable offense.

As an example, scholars use the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1998 when Bill Clinton was being tried under the statement of “high crimes and misdemeanors” after lying under oath about an affair. The question arose of whether or not certain crimes could be an impeachable offense, especially since the misdemeanor occurred under unofficial matters and was heavily based on how protected his private life by lying. This example shows how the statement “misdemeanors” could be confusing and not allow for a filter of what is considered impeachable or not. 

Based on both the common and divergent interpretation, I understand how the language used in the 4th section can come off as confusing and is too vague to be able to cause the impeachment of an office official. An adaptation that I believe would be beneficial would be to add the word first degree misdemeanors instead of just the word misdemeanors. This allows for confusion around the term misdemeanors to be eliminated and stops the idea that the section’s vagueness makes impeachment hard to apply. As well, this adaptation could be very helpful for possible upcoming impeachment trials and save the debate of whether the offense is considered impeachable.