section

Emma Zuzunaga – Article III, Section 3

Video

Written Component

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason, as well as the criteria for convicting people of treason, who decides the punishment for treason, and what punishment for treason is prohibited. Treason against the United States is defined as being one of two things, either levying war against, or offering aid and comfort to the enemies of, the United States. To be convicted of treason, two witnesses must give testament to witnessing the same act, or the accused must confess in court. Once convicted, the constitution says it is the job of Congress to decide the punishment of the criminal; however, Congress is not allowed to prohibit the descendants of the criminal from inheriting property from them after their death. 

This clause was created to establish a concrete definition of treason to prevent the government and politicians from using treason accusations to repress and silence political beliefs that did not align with their own. In Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, one of the founding fathers, Maddison discusses the potential harms of faction, especially to a young nation. This sentiment was likely reflected in the writing of the treason clause, which prevents powerful or ruling factions from shutting down those who do not agree with them, which could lead to social unrest. 

The motivation for the treason clause’s creation, the desire to prevent dominant parties from oppressing others and politically isolating them, also reflects the french revolution. The third estate at the estates general was oppressed by the first and second estates because they were consistently outvoted, and were politically isolated because they were eventually locked out of the room as punishment for attempting to stand up for themselves and their people. This led to an extremely violent revolution, which could have influenced the framers to try to prevent similar infighting through this clause. 

The last line of this clause directly opposed Britain’s law, which prohibited the descendants of traitors from inheriting their belongings. 

The 1945 Cramer v. United States case properly illustrates the most controversial aspect of this clause. Cramer v. United States case ruled that mentally adhering to America’s enemies was not the same as offering them aid and comfort, and so that was not given, no treason was committed. On the opposing side of this case, the Government side of the court, who lost, argued that offering America’s enemies aid and comfort should be interpreted loosely to provide a more applicable version of the law which could be used during times of war. Modern scholars argue that the restraints the clause illustrates actually prevent traitors from being charged with treason on technicalities, and treason is now very difficult to prove. 

I believe that the Government’s interpretation of the treason clause is more compelling and should be the interpretation we use because it makes the law much more applicable in a modern context. The Constitution should be a living document, and our definition of treason should be different than the framers of the Constitution. 

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.

Angelina Chu – Article 3, Section 1 (Judicial Branch)

Video

Written Component

Some framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government could not be successful without a judicial system to enforce such laws. This is rooted in the issues of the Articles of Confederation (1777) due to a weak central government, leading to a lack of unity among the states. One of the main flaws of the Articles was that it failed to enforce the laws that it preached. The Constitution strives to instill the unity that the Articles lacked by enforcing its unifying principles through the judicial system.
The judicial system is one of the three branches of the United States government. The common interpretation of Article 3 is that it unifies the states under one judicial system and Supreme Court.

In particular, Section 1 of Article 3 establishes this Supreme Court as the highest court in the judicial system, with inferior courts established by Congress when necessary. It also strives to enforce the integrity of the judicial system by stating that judges may keep such positions for the rest of their lives as long as they maintain “good behavior.” By instilling the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, Section 1 grants judges the ability to interpret the law. This strengthens the federal government as the Judicial branch can review governmental affairs, helping to check and balance the other two branches of government.


Although this interpretation of Article 3, Section 1 may be common, historical scholars have diverged in their understandings of the section. In Not Your Founding Fathers’ Judiciary, scholar David A. Strauss argues that the judicial system does not function in the way the founding fathers intended, with state courts taking on more importance than the Supreme Court. Although Section 1 puts emphasis on how the states are united under one Supreme Court, Strauss conveys that with the increasing number of crimes today, most cases do not have a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, with justice being carried out in state courts instead. On the other hand, academic Richard W. Garnett conveyed his argument in the article The “Judicial Power” and the Power of Judicial Review where he expresses the importance of judicial review, the court’s power to interpret and enforce the law.

Through its ability to deem governmental actions constitutional, Garnett presents that the judicial branch checks and balances the Executive and Legislative branches and thereby upholds the Constitution. The importance of judicial review is also demonstrated in Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, legitimatizing the Supreme Court’s right to rule laws as constitutional.
As Garnett highlights, Section 1’s establishment of the Supreme Court and judicial review helps to check and balance the other branches of the government.

This idea can be traced back to Montesquieu’s Enlightenment philosophy of the separation of powers. As Montesquieu details in his 1748 work, The Spirit of Laws, he proposes that the government must not be concentrated and instead split up into separate branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to check and balance the others, preventing tyranny and abuse of power. Article 3, the judicial branch, plays an imperative role in carrying out the separation of powers, upholding the integrity of the Constitution. Although the judicial system is a necessity to the Constitution, one possible amendment would be to classify “good behavior.” As behaving without “good behavior” is the only condition under which a judge would no longer be deemed fit for the job, defining what such behavior is would warrant that all judges are held to a specific, uniform standard and therefore ensure the Constitution’s integrity.

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. 

Daya: Article 3 Section 3 The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

 

The treason clause is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. It was not included to insure loyalty of citizens, but rather was included as a precautionary measure to prevent against the government’s misuse of treason prosecutions to stifle legitimate political opposition. By specifying the terms necessary for one to be convicted of treason, trials were focused on the narrowly defined terms of treason and prevented the punishment of cases without sufficient evidence.

The Treason Clause states that treason can only be prosecuted under two circumstances: levying war against the United States or providing enemies with aid and support. In order for an individual to be convicted, there must be testimony from two witnesses of the overt offense or a confession in open court. Additionally, the clause states that Congress is responsible for determining the punishment for treason while also saying that the punishment cannot extend beyond the convicted person’s life. This means that there can be no forfeiture of wealth and property.

In 1807 a case called Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout emerged. The case focused around an alleged plot by former Vice President Aaron Burr and two associates to overthrow the government in New Orleans. However, due to the strict definition of treason, they were not convicted. The Supreme Court decided that conspiring to levy war, such as drawing plans, recruiting troops, and finding maps, was different than having a group of people ready to commit the treasonous act. 

In another treason case, Cramer v the United States in 1954, the defendant, Cramer, was prosecuted for allegedly helping a Nazi soldier who had snuck into America during World War II. The court decided that in the case, there was both concrete action and intent to betray the nation, and therefore Cramer was convicted. This set the bar very high for other treason cases because it required both evident action and intent to betray the nation. In this case, the government attempted to argue that the Treason Clause should be interpreted leniently for wartime use. The court held true to the Framers’ beliefs and dismissed the idea of leniency during wartime, saying that treason cannot be the primary legal weapon to protect national security. While Cramer was convicted for treason, the court told the government that they could pursue other charges such as the  violation of the Espionage act, or the Trading with the Enemy Act without having to go through the specific Treason Clause. This ruling made it much harder to convict someone for treason in the future as there had to be evidence of support for the enemy and intention to betray the nation.

This begs the question, is the Treason Clause still relevant. Firstly, someone can still commit treason, which was the case for Adam Gadahn who was indicted for treason in 2006. Secondly, the Treason Clause represents the original values of the Framers. The strict procedure to convict someone is a reminder that the Framers did not want the government to suppress political opposition with threats of treason and wanted to safeguard individual rights. In America, the rise of the public sphere meant that different political ideas were freely circulating. In addition, today, with the widespread usage of social media, many political ideologies are discussed frequently. In both of these cases, the Framers’ original intentions prevent these discussions from having any repercussions.

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. 

 

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. 

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.

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.