the

Aniya S. – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Common Interpretation:

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that powers not given to the national government are granted to the states and general public. It highlights the limited and enumerated powers of the national government, while reminding of the essential role that the states and people play in the constitutional republic. The Tenth Amendment illustrates the relationship between the federal and state governments by demarcating their respective authorities. The main purpose of incorporating the Tenth Amendment into the Bill of Rights was to warn the national government about inferring or assuming powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Historical Context:

The Tenth Amendment was also made due to the lack of restrictions on national government exercising unauthorized powers over the citizens and states in the original Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution found it pointless to include a Bill of Rights for an already limited government, and even found the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to be potentially dangerous. They believed a Bill of Rights would be useless and that its vagueness would leave room for misinterpretations of certain rights. Despite the concerns, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment showed that it did not change the nature of national government. Legal scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to clarify the limits of national government to the American citizens (at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). 

Matters of Debate:

One interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is that it adds nothing substantial to the Constitution, as it simply defines the concept of “federalism”. The Tenth Amendment is simply a truism. Similarly, one matter of debate is whether the Tenth Amendment should serve as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism. Another interpretation holds that the Tenth Amendment restores a degree of balancing the powers of federal and state governments, as the enumerated powers of national government are often misunderstood. In this way, the Tenth Amendment acts as a backdrop to the governing structures outlined in the Constitution, giving some legal scholars reason to say it has “constitutional value”. The Supreme Court case, Bond v. The United States illustrates the latter interpretation, as the Court unanimously agreed that Bond should not be charged under a federal statute that violates the powers reserved to the states (Pennsylvania). It was agreed that the federal statute was beyond the enumerated powers of the national government, and therefore a constitutionally invalid law. Bond had every right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute. 

Significance:

The Tenth Amendment bears some similarities to the themes of Rousseau’s Social Contract, which asserts a relationship between individual liberty and the liberty of the government. In the “social contract”, the government maintains political authority, but must respect the people. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment holds that the national government has its designated powers, but so do the states and people. That said, I find the second interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to be most persuasive because the Amendment defines the balance of powers between the national government and states. I believe the Tenth Amendment has no reason to be further amended when it fulfills its purpose of outlining federalism in the constitutional republic. In other words, it serves its purpose well

Leila – The Third Amendment

Video

Written Component

 

The Third Amendment

The Third Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, providing that soldiers cannot stay in American citizens’ private homes without the homeowners’ consent. It was in response to British soldiers taking over colonists’ homes without the owners’ approval during the colonial period. The British had passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774 which made the colonists’ lives and the intrusion of the British soldiers into their homes even worse.

These Acts stated that colonists had to house soldiers in barracks, and, if that was not an option, soldiers would come into people’s homes where their necessities would be provided and paid for. These Acts also stated that British soldiers could take over uninhabited buildings and barns, allowing even more spaces to be commandeered by the British. The colonists saw this as an invasion of property and privacy. In addition, many soldiers were sick with diseases including smallpox. The Third Amendment was a response to these Acts, and an important protection for private property, life and privacy. 

There are several interpretations of the philosophy behind the Third Amendment. One interpretation focuses on the Third Amendment as giving more power to civilians than the militia or the government. Another interpretation centers on the right to privacy. These themes are consistent with concepts supported by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke who promoted similar ideas about Natural Rights, regarding a limited government and protected rights of the people such as life, liberty and property.  Locke believed that governments should be based on these ideas.

Although the Third Amendment comes up infrequently in case law, it has been brought up in a few legal cases. In Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965, a case about the right of married people to purchase birth control, the Amendment is cited as a protection of Americans’ privacy. In cases related to abortion, the Third Amendment has been used to argue that abortion rights are protected by inference in the Constitution. [1] Specifically, the Third Amendment protects privacy rights, and freedom from government interference in people’s homes. This is important because a right to “privacy” is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. Challengers to abortion rights often argue that since the specific right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, cases that protect important human rights under a “privacy” analysis can be overruled. The Third Amendment gives some weight to privacy protections though often does not apply to cases not involving soldiers and homes. An interesting modern interpretation even speaks to the right to “freedom from infection” contained in the Third Amendment. [2]  One question would be if the Third Amendment served its purpose. If it was truly intended to protect privacy why didn’t it state that more clearly. A house is just a place, but a home is a place where you are free with privacy.

    1.  The Bill of Rights Institute, “Griswold v Connecticut (1965),” The Bill of Rights Institute, 2023, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.
    2. Alexander Zhang, “The Forgotten Third Amendment Could Give Pandemic-Struck America a Way Forward,” The Atlantic, May 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/could-third-amendment-protect-against-infection/616791/.

(It wouldn’t do the proper indenting) 

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

The Establishment Clause

Video

Written Component

Context

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment addresses the coexistence of the multiple prominent religions in American history. In the creation of the Constitution, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, believed it best for the country if the government abstained from establishing a national religion and unjustly favoring specific religions. The clause reacts to the abuse of governmental power to promote religious beliefs and the forcing of spiritual practices in many southern colonies.

Common Interpretation

Most jurists believe the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from interfering with religious institutions if the action directly benefits one religion over others.

Matters of Debate

The main interpretations of the Establishment Clause either advocate for the separation of church and state or the equal support of all religions. Marci A. Hamilton, a supporter of the separation, claims that integrating religion with the government could lead to religious tyranny and abuse of power. She quotes influential American figures like Benjamin Franklin who expresses the hypocrisy of Christian sects which denounce persecution but still practice it against other groups and among themselves. In contrast, Michael McConnell supports impartiality to any one group instead of eliminating religion from the government because it allows all religions to flourish without having a dominant powerhouse. Under this ideology, he explains how the 2002 Supreme Court case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris was beneficial to the state and religion because it enabled the funding of religious schools and allowed families a greater range of choices for education. The case examined Ohio’s school voucher program which provided financial aid to families based on necessity, but the problem was that a majority of the aid went to religious schools. The final ruling governed that the program didn’t violate the Establishment Clause because the use of the financial aid was decided by the families, not the government. This case demonstrates that a violation of the Establishment Clause would require a direct inclination toward a religious school or religion.

Significance

The Establishment Clause was made to prevent the abuse and pressure of religion which contrasts to the European notions displayed in the Tempest. In the play, the Europeans were portrayed to be pushing their religion on the natives who are represented by Caliban. They gave no regard to his culture and justified their colonization with religion. The clause attempts to ensure the control of religion isn’t forced onto any citizen’s freedom. In my opinion, impartiality to religion is a more beneficial approach because it follows the clause in that no one religion is dominant, but it also allows the government to support religious freedom and institutes just like other public programs. If the clause were to be amended, I would suggest that the relationship between religion and the government be made clearer, perhaps with a portion signaling the main goal of the clause is to prevent preference of religion and not neglect. I think clarity of the purpose of the Establishment Clause can eliminate arguments and segway into the progression of religious freedom.

The Third Amendment – Emmy Casselman

Video

Written Component

The Third Amendment addresses the issue of involuntary quartering of British soldiers in the American colonies during times of war and peace, which limits the federal government’s ability to use private homes as housing for soldiers. Before this law was created, the Quartering Acts allowed for British soldiers to stay in the colonists homes, without the consent of the owner. Not only were the owners required to shelter the soldiers, but they had to provide food, bedding, beer, eating utensils, and much more, which was very invasive and destroyed the homes of the colonsists.

Since Britain was in debt, the British could not afford to house their soldiers themselves, so they put the burden and expense on the Americans, who were the enemies. The colonists felt that housing British soldiers without their permission was an invasion of privacy by the government and violated the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Eventually in 1766, the colonists refused to house the soldiers, forcing them to remain on the ships they arrived on, and later when the Bill of Rights was being written, made sure to include the subject of quartering soldiers, as they hoped housing their enemies would end. The Third Amendment does not have much direct Constitutional relevance at present.

Even though the federal government would never ask people to house soldiers today, there are some modern implications. It suggests that people have the right to domestic privacy and that they are not subject to home invasion by the government or soldiers, even in times of war. It is also the only part of the Constitution that addresses the relationship between civilians and soldiers, and this in particular emphasizes the control the people have over armed forces. Although this Amendment was important, just like all the others, there are not many Supreme Court cases that cite the Third Amendment. The lack of judicial interpretation may be because of the straightforward phrasing.

One of the few Supreme Court cases that mentions the Third Amendment is Griswold v. Connecticut, a case involving the constitutional right to contraception. It uses the Third Amendment as one of several constitutional guarantees with “penumbras” that “create zones of privacy.” Furthermore, in Katz v. Connecticut, in concern of a “search” or “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court noted the Third Amendment as “another aspect of privacy from governmental intrusion.” In Engblom v. Carey, the only court case to examine the Third Amendment in depth, discussed whether or not the state of New York violated correction officers’ Third Amendment rights when it used their state-owned residences without their consent to house New York National Guards.

As said before, although people today would not be asked to quarter soldiers, the fact that people have the right to privacy in their homes is very modern. Just like the Enlightenment thinkers, this idea was new and one people liked, especially in a time where America was trying to become independent from Britain. The enlightenment thoughts on quartering soldiers led to the American Revolution, and eventually, their freedom. 

Leila Grey – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment was initially enforced because the American public was searching for a new normal after the American Revolution. During this time, anti-federalists were scared of having another oppressive government. The federalists believed that by allowing people to have guns, it would begin to lessen the amount of power the government had over people by giving them weapons to defend themselves. The common understanding of this amendment was that militias, made up of working class citizens, were able to have weapons solely for defensive purposes. Along with this, the militias were given limited military training to ensure their ability to defend themselves and others. Originally, the Second Amendment was only applied to the federal government and each individual state could come up with their own regulations regarding firearms and weapons. This later became a large debate about whether the federal or state government should be in charge of gun bans and mandates in each state.   

There have been many debates about the Second Amendment starting with the United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The United States v. Cruikshank case argued that the federal government should not have authority over the individual states opinions on guns. There have also been differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have guns without regulations and that when the amendment was placed, they had people checking and inspecting guns before and after they were purchased. He also states that the founders aimed for this amendment to ensure safety from a possible tyrannical government or invaders. However, in 2008 the case of District of Columbia v. Heller took place. Heller argued that the handgun regulations in D.C went against their individual constitutional right to be able to carry guns for self defense. The other side of this debate argued that the Second Amendment only defends a small individual right and it should be inferred that there would be state mandates in areas with high crime rates. This case is important because it was the first court case to address whether the right to bear arms applied to an individual or if it was intended only for state militias.   

I found that the D.C. side of the District of Columbia v. Heller case was more persuasive because Heller argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia, however, the amendment clearly states that when referencing a free state, an orderly militia is given the right to carry guns, not the individual. Even though the people who form a militia are not appointed the title of being a soldier, they are meant to defend their community if necessary. Since many states within the nation have advocated for the right to carry firearms, in those states there should be more regulations that explicitly state where guns will be allowed along with having those rules more heavily enforced. In addition to heavier mandates, there should also be background checks for people who want to buy guns to scan for any compromising factors, like a mental illness or previous criminal activity, that could lead to extreme violence or dangers.   

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. 

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible. 



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.  

 

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.