the

Pema – The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, soon after its ratification in 1777, the Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that was strong enough to run the country while being conscious of potentially giving the government too much power and not protecting the people’s rights enough. The Articles of Confederation didn’t centralize the power under the federal government enough and gave the states too much individual power which led to its replacement in 1789. The Treason Clause in section 3 of Article 3 is one important article that helped to restrain the power of the government in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility of treason being weaponized by a future president to silence the people and any political opposition. The Founding Fathers incorporated the Treason Clause to prevent the government from becoming too powerful and becoming like the British monarchy. 

The Constitution defines treason as an act of an American betraying the allegiance that they owe to their country. The Treason Clause limits treason to two different kinds: treason by waging war against the U.S. and treason by helping the enemies of the U.S. by providing them “aid and comfort”. In order to sentence someone for treason, there must either be two witnesses that can testify to the same treasonous action or the accused person has to confess in open court. If someone is convicted of treason, Congress has jurisdiction and is able to make the punishment. However, the punishment has to be one that only the convicted person pays. Congress cannot extend the punishment to the convicted person’s family or the next generation of the family.

Over the years, many different cases have been made from different interpretations of the Treason Clause because what qualifies as treason was never fully specified. One example of this was in the case of Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout where levying war was clarified. Bollman and Swarthout were two of Aaron Burr’s associates who came forward accusing Aaron Burr of plotting treason to overthrow the government in New Orleans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that Aaron Burr was not guilty of treason and the distinction was made between conspiring to commit treason and taking action to commit treason. Conspiring to commit treason wouldn’t be considered treason but when steps/actions were taken, that would be considered treason.

The Treason Clause connects to an overarching theme of Enlightenment because some Enlightenment ideals were the idea of people having God-given rights and moving away from a monarchy and that’s exactly what the Treason Clause helps to accomplish. The Treason Clause protects the rights of people by offering safeguards to make it hard to be convicted of treason. The Treason Clause also limits the power of the government which helps balance the powers out evenly to prevent tyranny.

The Fourth Amendment- Charlotte Simon

Video

Written Component

The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British policies allowing raiding of people’s houses and personal belongings without cause. The English government would issue “writs of assistance” essentially allowing British officers to barge into people’s homes and seize their belongings. The Framers, specifically James Madison, knew this was a direct violation of privacy and basic rights. With this in mind, Madison wrote the fourth amendment, as they did not want the Constitution to subject future Americans to unreasonable, lawless searches. The fourth amendment ensures the privacy and safety of American citizens. Personal items and property are protected by this amendment, as it prevents the police from searches and seizures of personal property without a justifiable reason.

 

The wording of the fourth amendment provides for it to be interpreted in a few different ways. Supreme Court Justices do not always agree on how the amendment should be enforced and even if the amendment should be followed in the first place. On one hand, some Justices stick to the wording of the amendments and argue that warrants are absolutely necessary, and if they are not obtained, the search would be illegitimate. However, some Justices, claiming that a warrant is not needed, as long as the search is reasonable and “upon probable cause.” Legal scholar Barry Friedman thinks that the amendment is essential to everyday protection. He argues that our data is constantly being analyzed, like internet cookies, and that the fourth amendment is protecting the people’s security and keeping the government out of our lives and property without a justifiable reason.

 

He also proposes guidelines for searches and seizures. First, he argues that no one from the executive branch can step into people’s lives without permission from another branch of government because no search is “reasonable” if the legislative or judicial cannot also agree on it. Second, warrants are favored as they are crucial for protecting public safety. Lastly, searches should be differentiated between society and suspects. Though it is a bit of a stretch, the fourth amendment is an amendment that gives power to the people, not an uncommon theme in the French Revolution. The third estate in France fought for equal taxes and power, and the fourth amendment protects the American people from an overstepping government. So while both are different, they do share the same theme of giving power to the people and keeping their respective governments in check. I am a believer in warrants and the fourth amendment as a whole. As the world and technology becomes more and more invasive, sometimes I really worry about the security of my data. The fourth amendment is in our constitution to protect us, and our property’s safety. As for warrants, they allow the policing force to perform searches and seizures in a significantly less invasive way. And, when they do perform searches/ seizures without a warrant, legally it has to be because they have a genuine reason.

Teddy – The Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is commonly known as the Impeachment Clause. This section states that certain people in the United States government (“the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers”) can be removed from office if they are found guilty of certain types of misconduct (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”).

The idea of impeachment came from the English system where as a way to check the King’s power, Parliament could impeach ministers and those favored by the King. Contrary to the English practice at the time where any private or public person except for members of the royal family could be impeached, the Framers of the Constitution sought to limit who could be impeached and the offenses eligible for impeachment.

Per Article I, Section 1, only Congress has impeachment powers. The House of Representatives first must vote to impeach, or formally charge, the individual and then must write the articles which detail the charges before submitting them to the Senate. After convening a trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict and remove the official from office. Influenced by Enlightenment philosophes like Montesquieu, the Framers included the Impeachment Clause to allow Congress to check the Executive and Judicial branches as part of the system of checks and balances they created among the three branches of government. In order to discourage Congress from abusing its power, however, the impeachment process requires bipartisan cooperation to achieve the two-thirds vote required for conviction and removal. As a result, Congress has exercised its impeachment power infrequently, reserving it for cases where an individual’s misconduct is considered too dangerous to remain unchecked.

While judicial precedent is often used to interpret Constitutional provisions, the Judicial Branch has no authority over or involvement in the impeachment process; instead, Congress looks to historical precedent as a guide. As “civil Officers” is not defined in the Constitution, there was once a question as to whether or not members of Congress were included and subject to impeachment, but the common interpretation is that they are not Officers of the United States because Officers are appointed by the President. Instead, other provisions in the Constitution provide ways to remove members of Congress from office.

While Treason and Bribery are well defined concepts, there has been much debate around what constitutes a high Crime or Misdemeanor. In an early draft of the clause, “maladministration” was an impeachable offense, but out of concern that Congress would impeach on any grounds, the Framers replaced the term with “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As with other provisions of the Constitution, the Framers were purposely ambiguous in their wording in order to create a lasting system of government that is flexible enough to address unexpected circumstances and allow the removal of an official whose behavior is harmful to the public. It is commonly understood that this clause exists to allow a process for removing government officials not for incompetence, but for abuses of power.

Shreya Ranjan- The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Video

Written Component

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Created by James Madison as part of the First Amendment, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are now crucial parts of the American right to freedom. However, they weren’t always considered this way: America, since its founding, has been predicated on the concept of religious freedom. Indeed, many of the original colonies had been composed of immigrants who had fled from Europe to escape religious persecution, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

The Establishment and Free Practice Clauses were created to ban the implementation of an official national religion (it’s important to note that under the Establishment Clause, states were still allowed to have official religions, and some continued to do so until the 1830s (1)), to prevent congress from unfairly favoring one religion over another, and to guarantee citizens the ability to practice their respective religions.

The founders included these clauses to prevent the tyranny which would inevitably form out of the union of church and state, as well as to guarantee what was considered the “inalienable right” of citizens to free religious practice. Interpretations of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have often been specific, especially within the rulings of the Supreme Court: the juxtaposition of cases such as Kennedy v Bremerton School District and Santa Fe School District v Doe makes these differences clear.

Interestingly enough, both cases involved similar pretenses; Kennedy sued the Bremerton School District for violating his Free Practice Clause rights after the District ordered him to stop praying before football games, whilst the Santa Fe School District was sued for organizing student led prayers over loudspeakers before football games and thus violating the Establishment Clause.

In the case of Kennedy, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, writing that since Kennedy’s prayers were non-mandatory and discreet, they did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the court noted that the District’s order was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Nearly 20 years earlier, the court ruled against the Santa Fe School District, saying that prayers conducted over the loudspeaker were in violation of the Establishment Clause since they were organized and affiliated with the public school and, therefore, the government.

The distinction between government affiliated prayer and private prayer lends an interesting weight to these clauses, as the dilemma of separation between church and state has fascinated society for many years. Paralleling the Establishment Clause was the dechristianization of society during the French Revolution, wherein symbols of religion were removed throughout France. Interestingly enough, these sentiments continue today into modern French society— oftentimes, steps taken to eradicate the symbols of religion in public society have been targeted and Islamophobic (2).

This targeting raises the question of where the line should be drawn to separate government-affiliated and private religious symbolism: in the case of Doe, there were arguments that since the prayer was student-led, it did not violate the First Amendment. However, general consensus does seem to indicate that prayer conducted over a loudspeaker is considered public and, therefore, was in violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

Footnotes:

                      (1) Marc A. Clauson, “Religious freedom since the First Amendment and early state constitutions,” Constituting America, accessed June 1, 2023, https://constitutingamerica.org/religious-freedom-since-first-amendment-early-state-constitutions-guest-essayist-marc- clauson/#:~:text=Massachusetts%20was%20the%20last%20state,well%20as%20the%20national%20government.

                     (2)  Rachel Donadio, “Why Is France so Afraid of God?,” The Atlantic, November 22, 2021, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-god-religion-secularism/620528/.

Jason Joseph – The Commerce Clause and Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

Under the Articles of Confederation, states had the power to handle their commerce largely independently which hindered trade between states and hurt the overall economy. The Commerce Clause allowed Congress to centralize trade between nations, states, and Indian tribes. This increased trade and the movement of goods, bolstering the economy. In 1808, the first year it was authorized by the constitution to do so, Congress banned the importation of slaves because it fell under foreign commerce. This, as well as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), provided a precedent for Congress to overrule state laws that pertained to interstate or foreign commerce. Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) was a case where McClung believed Congress had no power to integrate his restaurant. McClung was forced to integrate because his business fit the definition of interstate commerce and Congress therefore had authority over it. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation created limitations on African Americans who traveled to different states, falling under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to gain more authority over the states to end segregation. The definition of interstate commerce is highly contested with those wanting decreased government oversight pushing for the original definition of navigation and trade, and those wanting increased government oversight arguing for a broader interpretation. By leaving the meaning of interstate commerce broad it assures that as the circumstances in the United States change so too can the economic practices.

The Declare War clause gives Congress the sole power to wage war, commandeer citizens’ ships in times of war, and provide legislation over obtained territory. The framers intended the Declare War clause to serve as a check to the President’s military power. However, the framers also wanted The President to keep enough autonomy in order to respond to sudden attacks against the nation. In 1964, Congress authorized military support to defend the assets and allies the United States had in Southeast Asia. This led to the Vietnam War, an undeclared war,  where The President took actions that vastly expanded on Congress’ authorization, such as having a draft. When President Nixon approved a secret bombing in Cambodia during the war, Congress realized it needed increased power in foreign military conflicts. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, mandates that The President communicate with Congress before using force, and obtain approval from Congress for missions longer than 60 days. This is intended to allow Congress to control the military direction of the nation. On the contrary, this resolution gives The President 60 days of unauthorized action, which prior to the resolution The President did not have. As weapons’ capability for destruction grows, troops travel faster, and information is spread more rapidly, the devastation and lasting impact that can be accomplished in 60 days of conflict is increasing. Can military action that profoundly affects the entire United States and the well-being of other nations be entrusted to a single individual?

 

Bibliography

Barnett, Randy E. “Why Congress and the Courts Should Obey the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Barnett, Randy E., and Andrew Koppelman. “The Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Denniston, Lyle. “Was the Vietnam War Unconstitutional?” National Constitution Center. Last modified September 20, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/was-the-vietnam-war-unconstitutional.

 

Oyez. “Gibbons v. Ogden.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1.

 

———. “Katzenbach v. McClung.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/543.

 

Ramsay, Michael D., and Stephen I. Vladeck. “Declare War Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. “War Powers Resolution of 1973.” Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. Last modified July 27, 2021. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973#:~:text=The%20War%20Powers%20Resolution%20of,the%20executive%20branch’s%20power%20when.

 

Vladeck, Stephen I. “Congress’s Statutory Abdication of Its Declare War Power.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

The VI & VII Amendments

Video

Written Component

The 6th and 7th Amendments are criminal amendments alongside the 5th and 14th Amendments. There were two main reasons why the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment were created. Firstly, these amendments responded to and strengthened previous British criminal prosecutions where only magistrates and judges would collect evidence and ask questions. Second, it was influenced by the enforcement of the sugar acts, where the British  sent colonials to Vice-Admiralty courts outside the colonies, without juries, and no representation. The Sixth responds to these concerns, creating a court framework so that criminal prosecutions would consist of a jury of peers to eliminate bias and guarantees the accused rights to a speedy, impartial, public trial. Now, the Sixth Amendment is more commonly understood to guarantee the accused rights to an attorney, no matter the cost.

However, this only existed after the Gideon vs. Wainwright court case, where Gideon, denied the right to an attorney after being convicted of a break-in, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and now the right to an attorney is explicitly and widely known to be incorporated within the Sixth Amendment. There are several other occurrences where the Sixth protected the accused’s rights after their right to a speedy trial was violated. For example, Zedner vs. United States is a criminal case where the district court judge convinced JACOB Zedner to waive his right to a speedy trial.

Zedner, four years later, appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that waiving his rights violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. In the end, all judges ruled in his favor. The Sixth, as demonstrated, is an essential part of the Amendments that protect the rights of the accused and creates a fairer and more impartial criminal prosecution system.

The Seventh Amendment states that both parties have the right to a jury on civil cases that exceed twenty dollars. The second clause of the Seventh states a similar case to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy. Civil cases will not be re-examined unless according to the standard law rules. Recently, however, the decision to use civil juries has been declining partly because of many negative downsides, including the fact that people are less willing to pay lawyer fees for a jury, jury trials for civil cases are generally more time-consuming for all parties, and State governments can modify the threshold(money needed)until the use of juries in civil cases are allowed.

Since the Seventh Amendment was created to serve as a means of representation, the original purpose of the Seventh Amendment to represent the American people may seem outdated. However, it still must be understood that both the 6th and 7th Amendments are significant to protect and ensure the rights of the accused. Otherwise, accused people would not have rights and face extreme bias and conviction rates within court systems.

The 8th Amendment – Jojo

Video

Written Component

The 8th Amendment was created to ensure that the government had restrictions regarding punishing criminals so the punishments would not be out of proportion. The Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In simpler terms, this clause restricts what types of punishments the government could inflict upon criminals, such as asking for unreasonable amounts of bail or fines imposed that are disproportionate to the crime. The 8th Amendment was initially derived from the British Bill of Rights written a century before in 1689. The British Bill of Rights also included the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” which American Politician George Mason got the idea to include in the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776. This Amendment was instituted because the framers felt the need to have a clause limiting the federal courts’ prosecuting power. 

The two scholars, John F. Stinneford and Bryan A. Stevenson debated the meaning of the 8th Amendment in terms of what “cruel and unusual punishment” really means in today’s context and how this Amendment relates to the death penalty. Stinneford’s argument focuses on the views of Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas argue that in terms of the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” the only acceptable punishments would be ones that were acceptable back when this Amendment was ratified in 1791. Those punishments also were not to be barbaric because that would violate the “cruel and unusual” part of the Amendment. Regarding the death penalty, they interpreted the Amendment in a way that did not prohibit it, but for someone to be put on death row, they had to be convicted by a grand jury through due process of law. As for Stevenson’s take on the Amendment, he interpreted that punishments had to be proportionate to the crime committed and up to modern standards of decency. His take on if the death penalty is constitutional is highly conditional because he argued that if the decision to sentence someone to death was influenced by racial, economic, or religious biases, then the death penalty is not constitutional. The conviction must be based entirely on facts and free of bias. 

A Supreme Court case that involved this clause was Atkins V.S Virginia. This case occurred in 2002 and concerned a man named Daryl Renard Atkins, who was tried for abduction, armed robbery, and murder. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to be put to death. However, the Virginia Supreme Court called for a second hearing because they argued that Atkins was mentally disabled and the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment.” As a result, the Supreme Court changed the verdict and took him off death row, creating the standard that executing mentally disabled persons is “cruel and unusual punishment.” The interpretations of this Amendment are varied, but Stevenson’s argument demonstrates how the clause should be interpreted with modern problems and standards to properly sentence offenders. The focal point of debate surrounding this Amendment is the constitutionality of the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, no definitive answer can be given about whether it is constitutional because it greatly depends on the crime committed. Nevertheless, this Amendment is crucial in the trial and conviction processes of the United States because it ensures proportionate and constitutional punishment is apportioned.

The Fourth Ammendment

Video

Written Component

In Britain, general warrants allowed the Crown’s messengers to search without cause any person suspected of committing an offense; while in the colonies, the Crown used “writs of assistance” as general warrants, but without time restraints.  Both controversies have led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment speaks to the idea that it is illegal for the government or government authority, such as a  Police officer or Military Personnel, to search or claim your person, property, whether that is your house, car, dog or any other sort of property, without a search Warrant.

 

The 21st century and the advent of modern technology has led scholars to debate whether The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the Internet Age where digital information can be readily accessed via the cloud or third parties “tracking” data. According to Orin Kerr a legal scholar, taking online data should be reasonable search and seizure, because if a burglar had just robbed a store and posted a picture of them with the money, it would only make sense for the court to constitutionally “seize” that photo, and use it in the Court of Law. Carpenter vs. United States was a U.S. Supreme Court case that took place in April 2011. Police detained 4 men who had committed armed robbery and the FBI used the cell phone numbers of these 4 men to determine additional charges. This Amendment connects to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense as they both share themes of independence and inalienable rights.

 

I agree with the view saying that certain data sent to a third party/cell companies should remain private. ‘Public’ information should only be information that you choose to publicize, for if you do not know what is public or not, it violates your rights because it is publicizing data without your consent, and the government should not be able to use that information. Public information should only be info you choose to disclose. If for example you choose to have a private account for example, that information (posts, tweets, etc.) should remain as private information. On social media accounts, there should be options to allow the website to disclose your information to the government/make it public. The user should know whether or not information is public. If they say no, the government will not have access to this information.

 

 

 

 

Connor Smyth – The Election Clause and Suspension Clause

Video

Written Component

Election Clause: The Election Clause, located in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the regulation and conduct of elections for Senators and Representatives. It says that the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding elections shall be determined by state legislatures while still granting Congress the authority to make or alter regulations, except for the selection of Senators’ places. The content of the Election Clause reflects the framers’ intent to establish a federal system that respects the freedom of individual states while ensuring a degree of federal oversight. By granting primary authority to state legislatures, this allows each state to tailor its electoral system according to its unique circumstances and demographics. The significance of the Election Clause lies in its role in safeguarding the democratic principles of the United States. It allows states to administer elections and shape their own voting regulations. Simultaneously, the clause empowers Congress to intervene if necessary to protect the fairness of federal elections or ensure the fair treatment of voters. This authority enables Congress to pass laws that establish uniform standards, address discriminatory practices, and guarantee the protection of voting rights.The Election Clause has played a significant role in defining the limits of state and federal authority, particularly through landmark decisions such in the case of the Voters Act of 1965, which involved the protection of free voting rights for all. This provision remains a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring the protection of voting rights and the integrity of the electoral system.

 

Suspension Clause: The Suspension Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, addresses the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It states that the right to habeas corpus, the requirement that someone that is arrested must be brought before a judge or into court, may not be suspended or delayed unless in the case of rebellion, invasion, or if the public may be in danger. The Suspension Clause sets a high threshold for suspending this privilege, permitting it only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk. By requiring such exceptional circumstances, the clause ensures that the writ of habeas corpus is not casually or unjustly suspended, preserving the right to challenge one’s detention before a court. The clause acts as a check on executive authority, requiring a legitimate and urgent threat to public safety before the suspension of habeas corpus can occur. Throughout history, the Suspension Clause has been invoked during times of crisis, such as the Civil War and World War II, to address threats to national security. Legal interpretations and debates have revolved around the scope of the clause, including questions of its applicability to non-citizens, the extent of judicial review, and the duration of suspension. The Suspension Clause continues to be relevant today, as issues such as terrorism and national emergencies prompt discussions about the delicate balance between civil liberties and security. 

Reese C-Constitution Project-The Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

The Declare War Clause is a part of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States. The clause states “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” The framers of the Constitution wished to include this clause to create a concrete limit on the power of the executive branch and disallow a single person from controlling such a momentous decision as Declaring War, unlike the British Monarchy where the king can declare war.

By vesting the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, the framers guaranteed that there would be checks and balances to the decision as Congress would need to vote to instigate a war. The clause has commonly been understood as vesting the power to declare war in Congress in order to limit the power of the Executive Branch and add a democratic process into the steps to declare war However, it is slightly contested among scholars as a majority of scholars agree that Presidents cannot instigate wars without the permission of Congress while a minority believes that the Declare War Clause only gives Congress the power to make formal declarations of war and as a result, the President can declare war.

To support this point, some scholars have looked carefully at the language of the clause and argued that the power to “declare war” can be thought of as a formal declaration and not the use of military force. As well, these scholars have looked into the historical practices of the clause: In response to attacks on American Ships in the Bey of Tripoli during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, Jefferson responded by sending ships to the Bey but instructed them to not attack the enemy ships and to only subdue them.

Jefferson felt that by commanding his ships to not attack the enemies, he wouldn’t be violating the Declare War Clause. In response to Jeffersons’ actions, former Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, stated that he found the clause to be vesting the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, but if another country had initiated a war, as the Tripolitans had in this case, then the country was already in a state of war and due to this, no declaration was needed to initiate war and use violence.

Using Jefferson’s actions and Hamilton’s view, scholars have argued that Presidents are allowed to deploy troops that are not involved in combat and initiate war if it is in response to attacks on the country. In the 1863 Prizes Case, the Supreme Court sustained President Lincoln’s blockade of southern states’ ports, without the permission of Congress, in response to the state’s attack on Fort Sumter. The court concluded that the blockade was constitutional because a state of war was in place as a result of the attack, therefore, the permission of Congress was not needed. The case clearly illustrates the President’s power to initiate war in the case of an attack on the country.

The Declare War Clause distinctly exhibits the separation of powers, which was heavily implemented by the French in their constitutions and it represents how both the American and French constitutions were heavily influenced by each country’s negative experiences under monarchs. I find that the scholars who believe that the Declare War Clause only gives Congress the ability to formally declare war are a minority for a reason: It seems backwards to think that the framers of the Constitution would not add a key separation of powers and that instead, that they were only talking about formalities.

I believe this because the concept of separation of powers is one of the backbones of the constitution and so I feel that it is more reasonable that this clause is using the concept. If I had the ability to amend the clause I would opt to add a section stating that the President cannot declare war unless the country has been attacked or they have the permission of Congress. I think this adds a lot of clarity and prevents any future President from feeling like they could not use the full force needed because they were trying to follow the clause so carefully.