sophie

Sophie Kim-Yatter: Article V

Video

Written Component

Article V of the US Constitution proposes the amendment process. This was a vital part of the Constitution because people likely would have hated being unable to change the ways of the government and society in any way, especially as time progressed.

Despite not yet being used, the convention method for amendments was an essential part to the original Constitution. The drafters recognized that the congressional method was controlled completely by the federal government; therefore, it could not be relied on to keep the federal government in check. Thus, the convention method was included as it largely bypasses the federal government, which demonstrates more appeal to anti-federalists, who would have been against complete federal government power. 

Two main parts compose Article V. First the methods of amendment are presented, the first being congressional proposal, and the second being by convention. For the first, if ⅔ of each house of congress approves the proposed amendment, it then gets sent to the states. ¾ of the states must ratify the amendment in order to be added to the Constitution. The second method is the convention method, where if ⅔ of the states agree, a convention is called for proposing amendments. Once an amendment is developed and approved by the convention, it is then sent back to the states, where, as with the first method, ¾ of the states must ratify. The second part to this article discusses the two ways an amendment can be ratified, chosen by congress. Either state legislatures decide or states can call for a convention to decide whether or not to ratify. 

The first of two major matters of debate argues that amendments are not the most successful way to implement constitutional change. Backed up with evidence of specific amendments and bills, it is clear that the change amendments propose materializes despite ratification or lack thereof. The second matter of debate is that people are not following the Constitution by its original meaning (originalism). “Originalists,” per se, believe that all the problems with the amendment process, specifically discussing bias towards federal government and difficulty enacting amendments, would be eliminated if everyone stuck to the “original” meaning of the Constitution. 

The first matter of debate is the more persuasive of the two. I feel that the first had much more detailed evidence to prove its claim, mentioning several specific amendments and acts that support. The originalism claim (2) provides decent reasoning, but in the end, the point itself was not strong enough. It states that if the original meaning of the Constitution was followed, major problems would be solved. But it is highly unlikely that this would actually eliminate these issues, as more problems are likely to stem from this other “original” interpretation. 

The supreme court case of Coleman v. Miller discussed Article V, where Coleman’s side argued that a state can not ratify an amendment after an unreasonable amount of time has passed, nor if they had already rejected the amendment, both of which were done by the Kansas state legislature. The final decision of the case deemed that there is nothing in Article V that prevents ratification after rejection, nor does an amendment lose vitality over time. 

Based on the Coleman v. Miller case, along with matters of debate, Article V clearly has issues with specificity. I believe that it would be beneficial to amend this article in order to include more details about uncertainties, such as how long an amendment may remain active for, in order to avoid further confusion regarding this essential section of the Constitution. 

The Free Exercise Clause

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution stems from freedom sought by early American colonists who left religious persecution in Europe for a place where they would be free to practice their faith without interference from the government or established churches. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded by the Puritans, is one such example. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of religious freedom and codified the right of individuals to freely express their beliefs, worship as they wished, and organize religious communities without government interference in the Constitution. In 1791, the “Free Exercise Clause” was included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and its intent was to ensure that the government would not establish a national religion or impede the exercise of religious freedom by its citizens. 

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens’ rights to: practice religious beliefs without government interference, follow their religious convictions, participate in religious rituals, attend religious services, and express their faith without fear of persecution or discrimination. What the clause does not specify is when the government may limit the exercise of religious freedom and thus leaves room for interpretation. The Supreme Court established a precedent that the government may impose restrictions on religious practices if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are applied in a neutral manner.

In Reynolds v United States (1878), the Supreme Court ruled against the practice of bigamy and found that free exercise protects belief but not all conduct. “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.” In Cantwell vs Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court found that state law requiring a permit for religious solicitation violated the Free Exercise Clause. Cantwell established that the government must generally allow individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without unnecessary restrictions. Citing Reynolds, the Court emphasized that “[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court found that free exercise did not relieve people of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability.”  Reacting to that decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, providing religious exemptions from laws that place a “substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the government demonstrated a “compelling interest.” Relying on RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014), that Hobby Lobby was exempt from a law that required health insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing medications.

In many ways, the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause was the culmination of the successful struggle for religious and personal freedom that compelled people to emigrate from Europe and found the thirteen colonies. Ideals such as the freedom of religion and the individual being entitled to natural rights, even when governed by a social contract, are exemplified in this clause and served as catalysts for the drafting of the United States Constitution.  

 

Article IV: The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause (Article IV) responds to and prevents oppressive types of governments like monarchies. The Guarantee Clause reflects the framers’ aim to ensure democratic principles in the United States and maintain a representative government in each state. The Guarantee Clause states that every state must have a republican form of government. This ensures that no state inflicts a monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or stratocracy. The clause does not detail the conditions of the republican government (specifically regarding voting requirements), but it does guarantee federal protection to all states from foreign invasions and domestic violence. 

Some scholars interpret this clause as a finite check on the federal government’s interference with the states’ autonomy and, specifically, enabled each state to set appropriate requirements for state and local elections. Others interpret this provision to explain that the federal government can interfere with states’ voting requirements if the conditions disenfranchise part of their population. Scholars argue that post Reconstruction Era, specifically in places where African American’s made up at least 40% of the population, the Guarantee Clause was not upheld, disenfranchising African Americans.    

Texas v. White (1891) provides some context for this interpretation, as the ruling dictated that the newly freed African Americans would become part of the people; thus, they were included in the republic and entitled to vote. Subsequently, Chin utilizes Ratliff v. Beale, which explained how and why Mississippi disenfranchised African Americans.

They declared that the newly enfranchised race (who were greater in numbers) lacked the intelligence and governmental instinct to complete these public services. This acknowledges Mississippi’s “problem” because African Americans comprised most of the population. Furthermore, the elected government personnel would not reflect who the white people desired to hold power in the state. By claiming that Black people did not have sufficient intelligence, the Mississippi Constitutional Convention addressed this problem by creating literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting.

With these two cases in mind, African Americans, who made up the majority of the population, did not vote; thus, allowing Mississippi and other former Confederate states to run on the minority vote. Finally, in United States v. Mississippi (1965), the United States acknowledges the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans and, ergo, states running on the minority vote.

The Supreme Court case Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) ruled that Congress could change the age requirement only for federal elections, not state or local ones, as it was beyond Congress’s authority. This ruling supports interpretations regarding states’ autonomy as it prevented the federal government from impeding Oregon’s rights.

Although the 24th Amendment (1964) abolished literacy tests and polling taxes, Chin’s claim extrapolates to current forms of disenfranchisement like gerrymandering. It provokes readers to question if the federal government’s allowance of states’ gerrymandering violates the Guarantee Clause. The Guarantee Clause reflects Lockean ideas of popular sovereignty in that each state runs on a republican form of government where the people have control through elections. Similarly, the provision incorporates Rousseau’s idea of the general will, as the clause guarantees that states govern according to the majority vote.

Sophie Saxl- The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

Sophie Saxl

Constitution Project Write- Up: The Due Process Clause

6/2/23

 

The Magna Carta, a charter of rights issued in 1215 by King John of England, introduces the concept of due process in its 39th chapter, stating that no free man should be taken under arrest without a fair judgment by his peers. Due process sets an important standard of fairness and a just protection of all parties in legal proceedings. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in the U.S. Constitution ensures the right to a fair, thorough, and lawfully judged legal and administrative process to every person in court.

There are two aspects of the Due Process Clause: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process is the right to decisions involving the government being made through a fair and impartial process which includes fair notice, the opportunity to be heard and a fair presentation and examination of evidence for all parties. It is widely supported and uncontroversial. Substantive due process is much more debated, as it puts more limits on governmental authority, allowing courts to protect certain fundamental rights relating to “life, liberty and property,” as the Fifth Amendment states. Supporters of the theory of substantive due process often claim that it is the best way to protect fundamental human rights, including those not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Legal scholars against the theory argue that the concept upsets the balance of power specifically outlined between the branches of the U.S. government, giving an unwarranted amount of power to the courts. This argument also asserts that substantive due process would give courts unlimited power of review over what rights are to be protected. This argument is based on the idea that the only rights protected are those stated in the Constitution. 

Due process is frequently brought up in Supreme Court cases, with one early example being in the extremely controversial Lochner vs. New York. In this case, a bakery owner, Joseph Lochner, was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act, a law setting a maximum of 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week allowed to be worked by bakery employees. Lochner argued that due process should be interpreted to contain freedom of contract covered by substantive due process. Even though Lochner referenced the Due Process Clause applying to states in the Fourteenth Amendment, he uses the same conceptual argument that applies to the Fifth Amendment. While Lochner was later overturned, substantive due process has continued to be debated in privacy cases.

The Due Process Clause is a manifestation of a crucial enlightenment ideal: natural rights. John Locke’s ideas on natural rights hold a close connection to the Due Process Clause, down to the specific wording. In his “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” Locke asserts that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions,” using nearly identical wording to the clause itself: “life, liberty, and property.”

The argument around substantive due process draws back to a central point of debate in interpreting the Constitution: should judgment be based on the intent of the framers, or on the relevance today? I believe that the Constitution can only be read as a document made to change with time, because the Constitution is adaptable to different times, as proven by the built-in amendment process outlined in the Constitution.