the-constitution

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. 

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.  

 

Layla Boyce: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individual rights by ensuring a fair and just legal system. One event does not appear to have prompted the addition of the Fifth Amendment; rather, the amendment was born out of a recognition of the importance of a just legal system. The Fifth Amendment includes five separate protections: right to a trial by jury (the right to be judged by an unbiased audience of informed citizens), protection against “double jeopardy” (one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense), protection against self-incrimination (individuals are not compelled to implicate themselves), the right to a fair and speedy trial (cases should not involve prejudice or unnecessary delays), and protection of private property (without compensation, the government cannot seize personal property). Of these provisions, one of the most controversial features of the Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination, commonly known as the “right to remain silent”.  

The relevant text of the Amendment reads, “ …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”.  Generally, it is interpreted to mean individuals are permitted to refuse to answer incriminating questions or “take the 5th” during a criminal trial.  These protections have been extended to the pre-trial investigation stage.  Law enforcement is obligated to inform suspects in custody of their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by reading them an explanation known as a Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, demonstrates the issues caused by the broad language of the Fifth Amendment. Archie Dixon was questioned first about forgery without being Mirandized and his requests for an attorney were ignored. Subsequently, during a second interrogation after receiving Miranda warnings, he confessed to murder. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the police’s actions during the first were unconstitutional and that the second questioning was thus impermissibly tainted. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision arguing that “Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody…” It was decided that there was no nexus between the improper unwarned admission to forgery and his later Mirandized confession to murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dixon’s confession was properly elicited and reinstated his conviction.  

Furthermore, Griffin v. California (1965), a Supreme Court case, challenged the practice inferring guilt against defendants who employed their Fifth Amendment rights. Many people then were coerced into testifying to prevent the assumption of guilt.  The Supreme Court decided in Griffin this practice rendered the Fifth Amendment protections hollow as no one should be  ‘made “worse off” by asserting the Fifth than by not asserting it.’

The Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring due process rights, and safeguarding property rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a significant role in protecting individual rights against the potential abuses of a  powerful government.