Success! A copy of this quiz is in your dashboard.
It is important for every Americancitizen to read and understand the constitution. This helps them to identify and know their rights and how to react when they have been violated. Do you understand it fully take up the fun quiz below and see what you know about it. All the best!
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 2.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 3.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- 4.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- 5.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- 6.If a flag becomes torn or tattered, what should you do?
Burn it and bury it
Lower it to half mast
Take it down
Fly it upside down
- What plan at the Philadelphia Convention favored the large states b/c it wanted representation based on population?
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise (Great Compromise)
- What problem did the Great Compromise settle?
Taxation
Representation
Slavery
Trade
- A.
It was a confederacy, so powered lied at the state level.
It only had one branch of government; a legislative branch. No executives or courts.
It was a very strong government that heavily taxed the people.
It was replaced by a stronger Constitution.
- What fraction of Congress does it take to override a veto of President?
1/2
1/3
3/4
2/3
- What fraction of Congress does it take to 'propose an amendment'? (Step 1 of the amendment process)
1/2
2/3
3/4
1/3
- A.
- B.
The Senate approves appointments made by the President.
The House starts all revenue or spending bills.
If the President and Vice President were to both die, the Speaker of the House would take over.
- How many total amendments are there to the Constitution?
36
10
27
21
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 15.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 16.
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 17.Giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States is called ____________.
Federalism
Logrolling
Treason
Habeas corpus
- True or False? Habeas Corpus prevents people from being kept in jail indefinitely. It is a court order to see the judge which allows you to have a trial.
True
False
- Which of the following is not a check the President has on Congress?
Veto
Call a special session
Judicial review
- Due process rights include all of the following except...
Right to a second trial
Right to an attorney
Right to a fair and speedy trial
Freedom from self incrimination (remain silent)
- Dividing power between the states and the national government is called....
Federalism
Checks and balances
Separation of powers
Impeachment
Treason
- Giving each branch some degree of oversight of the other branches is called ________.
Federalism
Checks and balances
Separation of powers
Confederacy
- Why did the framers originally meet in Philadelphia in 1787?
To praise the Articles of confederation
To amend the Articles of Confederation
To declare our independence
To write a whole new constituiton
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- 25.Which of the following is not in the preamble of the Constitution?
Form a more perfect union
Establish justice
Ensure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Limit states' rights
- A.
- B.
- C.
- D.
- E.
- 27.According to the _____________ clause, states must recognize the legal documents of other states.
Full faith and credit
Privileges and immunities
Extradtion
Supremacy
- When state and national law conflict, who is Supreme?
State govt.
National govt.
- Which of the following is not a power of Congress?
Grants patents/copyrights
Raise the army and navy/declare war
Post office
Judicial review
Handle bankruptcy
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
This article is part of a series on the |
Constitution of the United States of America |
---|
Preamble and Articles of the Constitution |
Amendments to the Constitution |
Unratified Amendments |
History |
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments |
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
- 3Meaning and application
- 3.3Interpretation
Text
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Drafting
The Preamble was placed in the Constitution during the last days of the Constitutional Convention by the Committee on Style, which wrote its final draft, with Gouverneur Morris leading the effort. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the convention beforehand. The initial wording of the preamble did not refer to the people of the United States, rather, it referred to people of the various states, which was the norm. In earlier documents, including the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word 'people' was not used, and the phrase the United States was followed immediately by a listing of the states, from north to south.[1] The change was made out of necessity, as the Constitution provided that whenever the popularly elected ratifying conventions of nine states gave their approval, it would go into effect for those nine, irrespective of whether any of the remaining states ratified.[2]
Meaning and application
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[3] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[4] except as regards frivolous litigation.[5]
Judicial relevance
The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[6] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[7] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[8] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[9] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the 'spirit' of the Constitution.
Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are usually interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it;[10] as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.[11] Although revolutionary in some ways, the Constitution maintained many common law concepts (such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and sovereign immunity),[12] and courts deem that the Founders' perceptions of the legal system that the Constitution created (i.e., the interaction between what it changed and what it kept from the British legal system[13]) are uniquely important because of the authority 'the People' invested them with to create it.[14] Along with evidence of the understandings of the men who debated and drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, the courts are also interested in the way that government officials have put into practice the Constitution's provisions, particularly early government officials,[15] although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[16] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[17] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[18] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.[19]
Examples
An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[20] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as 'blighted', and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a 'public use'. In deciding whether the proposed project constituted a 'public use', the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to 'promot[ing] the general Welfare' as evidence that '[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers'.[21] '[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.''[22]
On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.[23] is an example of this. In that case, the defendants were a car manufacturer and dealership indicted for a criminal violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Congress passed the statute in order to cope with the Great Depression, and one of its provisions purported to give to the President authority to fix 'the prices at which new cars may be sold'.[24] The dealership, located in Oklahoma City, had sold an automobile to a customer (also from Oklahoma City) for less than the price for new cars fixed pursuant to the Act. Substantively, the case was about whether the transaction in question constituted 'interstate commerce' that Congress could regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[25] Although the government argued that the scope of the Commerce Clause included this transaction, it also argued that the Preamble's statement that the Constitution was created to 'promote the general Welfare' should be understood to permit Congress to regulate transactions such as the one in this case, particularly in the face of an obvious national emergency like the Great Depression. The court, however, dismissed this argument as erroneous[26] and insisted that the only relevant issue was whether the transaction that prompted the indictment actually constituted 'interstate commerce' under the Supreme Court's precedents that interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause.[27]
Interpretation
Aspects of national sovereignty
The Preamble's reference to the 'United States of America' has been interpreted over the years to explain the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution created (i.e., the federal government). In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states (or 'sovereign nations' in modern equivalent). A state is said to be 'sovereign,' if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the concept is distinct from mere land-title or 'ownership.'[28] While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the Supreme Court held that the 'United States of America' consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.[29] Although the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.[30]
Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws.[31] Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to 'establish Post Offices and Post Roads'[32] includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established).[33] The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power[34] over those limited matters[35] entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state.[36] The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial),[37] each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution.[38] In addition, the doctrine of separation of powers functions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.[39]
One aspect of the American system of government is that, while the rest of the world now views the United States as one country, domestically American constitutional law recognizes a federation of state governments separate from (and not subdivisions of) the federal government, each of which is sovereign over its own affairs.[40] Sometimes, the Supreme Court has even analogized the States to being foreign countries to each other to explain the American system of State sovereignty.[41] However, each state's sovereignty is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of both the United States as a nation and each state;[42] in the event of a conflict, a valid federal law controls.[43] As a result, although the federal government is (as discussed above) recognized as sovereign and has supreme power over those matters within its control, the American constitutional system also recognizes the concept of 'State sovereignty,' where certain matters are susceptible to government regulation, but only at the State and not the federal level.[44] For example, although the federal government prosecutes crimes against the United States (such as treason, or interference with the postal system), the general administration of criminal justice is reserved to the States.[45] Notwithstanding sometimes broad statements by the Supreme Court regarding the 'supreme' and 'exclusive' powers the State and Federal governments exercise,[46] the Supreme Court and State courts have also recognized that much of their power is held and exercised concurrently.[47]
People of the United States
The phrase 'People of the United States' has long been understood to mean 'nationals and citizens.'[48][49] This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ('We the People') includes only U.S. nationals and citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes aliens and foreign nationals.[50] It has also been construed to mean something like 'all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States.'[51] The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereigntyfrom the people,[52] (whereas 'United Colonies' had identified external monarchical sovereignty) as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect 'the people' directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units.[53] The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States.[54] Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states.[55]
The popular nature of the Constitution
The Constitution claims to be an act of 'We the People.' However, because it represents a general social contract, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law was enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.[56] For example, a person claiming certain benefits that are created by a statute cannot then challenge, on constitutional grounds, the administrative mechanism that awards them.[57] These same principles apply to corporate entities,[58] and can implicate the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.[59]
In this same vein, courts will not answer hypothetical questions about the constitutionality of a statute.[60] The judiciary does not have the authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws solely because they are unconstitutional, but may declare a law unconstitutional if its operation would injure a person's interests.[61] For example, creditors who lose some measure of what they are owed when a bankrupt's debts are discharged cannot claim injury, because Congress' power to enact bankruptcy laws is also in the Constitution and inherent in it is the ability to declare certain debts valueless.[62] Similarly, while a person may not generally challenge as unconstitutional a law that they are not accused of violating,[63] once charged, a person may challenge the law's validity, even if the challenge is unrelated to the circumstances of the crime.[64]
Where the Constitution is legally effective
The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.[65] For example, in Casement v. Squier,[66] a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury.[67] The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.[68]
Since the Preamble declares the Constitution to have been created by the 'People of the United States', 'there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union.'[69] The following examples help demonstrate the meaning of this distinction:[70]
- Geofroy v. Riggs, 133U.S.258 (1890): the Supreme Court held that a certain treaty between the United States and France which was applicable in 'the States of the Union' was also applicable in Washington, D.C., even though it is not a state or a part of a state.
- De Lima v. Bidwell, 182U.S.1 (1901): the Supreme Court ruled that a customs collector could not, under a statute providing for taxes on imported goods, collect taxes on goods coming from Puerto Rico after it had been ceded to the United States from Spain, reasoning that although it was not a State, it was under the jurisdiction of U.S. sovereignty, and thus the goods were not being imported from a foreign country. However, in Downes v. Bidwell, 182U.S.244 (1901), the Court held that the Congress could constitutionally enact a statute taxing goods sent from Puerto Rico to ports in the United States differently from other commerce, in spite of the constitutional requirement that 'all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,'[71] on the theory that although Puerto Rico could not be treated as a foreign country, it did not count as part of the 'United States' and thus was not guaranteed 'uniform' tax treatment by that clause of the Constitution. This was not the only constitutional clause held not to apply in Puerto Rico: later, a lower court went on to hold that goods brought from Puerto Rico into New York before the enactment of the tax statute held constitutional in Downes, could retroactively have the taxes applied to them notwithstanding the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws, even if at the time they were brought into the United States no tax could be applied to the goods because Puerto Rico was not a foreign country.[72]
- Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230U.S.139 (1913): the Fifth Amendment's requirement that 'no person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law' was held, by the Supreme Court, to apply in Puerto Rico, even though it was not a State and thus not 'part' of the United States.
To form a more perfect Union
The phrase 'to form a more perfect Union' has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[73] The contemporary meaning of the word 'perfect' was complete, finished, fully informed, confident, or certain.[74] The phrase has been interpreted in various ways throughout history based on the context of the times. For example, shortly after the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court said that the 'Union' was made 'more perfect' by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens only indirectly through the states, e.g., by imposing taxes.[75] Also, the institution was created as a government over the States and people, not an agreement (union) between the States.[76]
Later, the phrase came to mean the continual process of improvement of the country.[77]
To know what has come before is to be armed against despair. If the men and women of the past, with all their flaws and limitations and ambitions and appetites, could press on through ignorance and superstition, racism and sexism, selfishness and greed, to create a freer, stronger nation, then perhaps we, too, can right wrongs and take another step toward that most enchanting and elusive destinations: a more perfect Union.'
The phrase has also been interpreted to support the federal supremacy clause and that state nullification of any federal law,[78] dissolution of the Union,[79] or secession from it,[80] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
See also
Notes
- ^In the handwritten engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the spelling 'defence,' now considered British, is used in the preamble; in addition the 'd' is lower case, unlike the other use of 'defence' in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) and unlike most of the other nouns in the Preamble. (See the National Archives transcription and the Archives' image of the engrossed document. Retrieved both web pages on April 17, 2016.)
References
- ^McDonald, Forrest. 'Essay on the Preamble'. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
- ^Schütze, Robert. European Constitutional Law, p. 50 (Cambridge University Press 2012).
- ^See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ('Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.'); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) ('The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.' (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
- ^It is difficult to prove a negative, but courts have at times acknowledged this apparent truism. See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 ('I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.').
- ^In Jacobs v. Pataki, 68 F. App'x 222, 224 (2d Cir. 2003), the plaintiff made the bizarre argument that 'the 'United States of America' that was granted Article III power in the Constitution is distinct from the 'United States' that currently exercises that power'; the court dismissed this contention with 3 words ('it is not') and cited a comparison of the Preamble's reference to the 'United States of America' with Article III's vesting of the 'judicial Power of the United States.'
- ^Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 531–32 (1871) ('[I]t [cannot] be questioned that, when investigating the nature and extent of the powers, conferred by the Constitution upon Congress, it is indispensable to keep in view the objects for which those powers were granted. This is a universal rule of construction applied alike to statutes, wills, contracts, and constitutions. If the general purpose of the instrument is ascertained, the language of its provisions must be construed with reference to that purpose and so as to subserve it. In no other way can the intent of the framers of the instrument be discovered. And there are more urgent reasons for looking to the ultimate purpose in examining the powers conferred by a constitution than there are in construing a statute, a will, or a contract. We do not expect to find in a constitution minute details. It is necessarily brief and comprehensive. It prescribes outlines, leaving the filling up to be deduced from the outlines.'), abrogated on other grounds by Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), as recognized in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
- ^Cf. Badger v. Hoidale, 88 F.2d 208, 211 (8th Cir. 1937) ('Rules applicable to the construction of a statute are equally applicable to the construction of a Constitution.' (citing Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 (1865))).
- ^Examples include the 'plain meaning rule,' Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 619 (1895) ('The words of the Constitution are to be taken in their obvious sense, and to have a reasonable construction.'), superseded on other grounds by U.S. CONST. amend. XVI, as recognized in Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ('The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text . . . .'), and noscitur a sociis, Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893) ('It is a familiar rule in the construction of terms to apply to them the meaning naturally attaching to them from their context. Noscitur a sociis is a rule of construction applicable to all written instruments. Where any particular word is obscure or of doubtful meaning, taken by itself, its obscurity or doubt may be removed by reference to associated words. And the meaning of a term may be enlarged or restrained by reference to the object of the whole clause in which it is used.').
- ^See, e.g., Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 663 (1945) ('[I]n determining the meaning and application of [a] constitutional provision, we are concerned with matters of substance, not of form.'), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984); South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 451 (1905) ('[I]t is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed.'), overruled on other grounds by Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 658 (1884) ('[I]n construing the Constitution of the United States, [courts use] the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed. This principle, in its application to the Constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity, by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers . . . .'); Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80, 87 (1877) ('A mere adherence to the letter [of the Constitution], without reference to the spirit and purpose, may [sometimes] mislead.').
- ^Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 219 (1901) ('[W]hen called upon to construe and apply a provision of the Constitution of the United States, [courts] must look not merely to its language but to its historical origin, and to those decisions of this court in which its meaning and the scope of its operation have received deliberate consideration.').
- ^United States v. S.-E. Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 539 (1944) ('Ordinarily courts do not construe words used in the Constitution so as to give them a meaning more narrow than one which they had in the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written.'), superseded on other grounds by statute, McCarran-Ferguson Act, ch. 20, 59 Stat. 33 (1945) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1015 (2006)), as recognized in U.S. Dep't of the Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993); Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887) ('[I]n the construction of the language of the Constitution . . . , we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument.'), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985), and United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002).
- ^United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310, 311 (1892) ('[T]he Constitution . . . is to be read in the light of the common law, from which our system of jurisprudence is derived.' (citations omitted)); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888) ('The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.').
- ^United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 142 (1936) ('Whether a clause in the Constitution is to be restricted by a rule of the common law as it existed when the Constitution was adopted depends upon the terms or nature of the particular clause.' (citing Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Chi., Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 648 (1935))); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895) ('We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted, not as reaching out for new guaranties of the rights of the citizen, but as securing to every individual such as he already possessed as a British subject -- such as his ancestors had inherited and defended since the days of Magna Charta.').
- ^Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533, 542 (1869) ('We are obliged . . . to resort to historical evidence, and to seek the meaning of the words [in the Constitution] in the use and in the opinion of those whose relations to the government, and means of knowledge, warranted them in speaking with authority.').
- ^McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ('[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight.'); Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ('[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.' (citations omitted)).
- ^Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 311 (1901) ('[A] practical construction [of the Constitution] is relied upon only in cases of doubt. . . . Where there was obviously a matter of doubt, we have yielded assent to the construction placed by those having actual charge of the execution of the statute, but where there was no doubt we have steadfastly declined to recognize any force in practical construction. Thus, before any appeal can be made to practical construction, it must appear that the true meaning is doubtful.'); see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) ('It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.').
- ^In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 591 (1895) ('Constitutional provisions do not change, but their operation extends to new matters as the modes of business and the habits of life of the people vary with each succeeding generation.'), overruled on other grounds by Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968); R.R. Co. v. Peniston, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 5, 31 (1873) ('[T]he Federal Constitution must receive a practical construction. Its limitations and its implied prohibitions must not be extended so far as to destroy the necessary powers of the States, or prevent their efficient exercise.'); In re Jackson, 13 F. Cas. 194, 196 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1877) (No. 7124) ('[I]n construing a grant of power in the constitution, it is to be construed according to the fair and reasonable import of its terms, and its construction is not necessarily to be controlled by a reference to what existed when the constitution was adopted.').
- ^E.g., Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 329 U.S. 69, 77, 78 (1946) ('[T]o infer qualifications does not comport with the standards for expounding the Constitution. . . . We cannot, therefore, read the prohibition against 'any' tax on exports as containing an implied qualification.'); Fairbank, 181 U.S. at 287 ('The words expressing the various grants [of power] in the Constitution are words of general import, and they are to be construed as such, and as granting to the full extent the powers named.'); Shreveport v. Cole, 129 U.S. 36, 43 (1889) ('Constitutions . . . are construed to operate prospectively only, unless, on the face of the instrument or enactment, the contrary intention is manifest beyond reasonable question.')
- ^Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886) ('[C]onstitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.'), recognized as abrogated on other grounds in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
- ^257 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. Mich. 1966).[1]
- ^Id. at 572.
- ^Id. at 574 (emphasis added).
- ^8 F. Supp. 535 (W.D. Okla. 1934).
- ^Id. at 535.
- ^U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. ('The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate commerce . . . among the several states . . . .').
- ^Kinnebrew Motor Co., 8 F. Supp. at 539 ('Reference has been made in the government's brief to the 'Welfare Clause' of the Constitution as if certain powers could be derived by Congress from said clause. It is not necessary to indulge in an extended argument on this question for the reason that there is no such thing as the 'Welfare Clause' of the Constitution.').
- ^Id. at 544 ('The only question which this court pretends to determine in this case is whether or not the sale of automobiles, in a strictly retail business in the vicinity of Oklahoma City, constitutes interstate commerce, and this court, without hesitation, finds that there is no interstate commerce connected with the transactions described in this indictment, and if there is no interstate commerce, Congress has no authority to regulate these transactions.')
- ^See Shapleigh v. Mier, 299 U.S. 468, 470, 471 (1937) (when certain land passed from Mexico to the United States because of a shift in the Rio Grande's course, '[s]overeignty was thus transferred, but private ownership remained the same'; thus, a decree of a Mexican government official determining title to the land, 'if lawful and effective under the Constitution and laws of Mexico, must be recognized as lawful and effective under the laws of the United States, the sovereignty of Mexico at the time of that decree being exclusive of any other')
- ^Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606 (1889) ('[T]he United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the Constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. . . . For local interests, the several states of the union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.').
- ^United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936) ('[T]he investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. . . . As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.').
- ^United States v. Bradley, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 343, 359 (1836) ('[T]he United States being a body politic, as an incident to its general right of sovereignty, has a capacity to enter into contracts and take bonds in cases within the sphere of its constitutional powers and appropriate to the just exercise of those powers, . . . whenever such contracts or bonds are not prohibited by law, although the making of such contracts or taking such bonds may not have been prescribed by any preexisting legislative act.'); United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115, 128 (1831) ('[T]he United States has . . . [the] capacity to enter into contracts [or to take a bond in cases not previously provided for by some law]. It is in our opinion an incident to the general right of sovereignty, and the United States being a body politic, may, within the sphere of the constitutional powers confided to it, and through the instrumentality of the proper department to which those powers are confided, enter into contracts not prohibited by law and appropriate to the just exercise of those powers. . . . To adopt a different principle would be to deny the ordinary rights of sovereignty not merely to the general government, but even to the state governments within the proper sphere of their own powers, unless brought into operation by express legislation.')
- ^U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 7
- ^In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 578, 582 (1895) ('While, under the dual system which prevails with us, the powers of government are distributed between the State and the Nation, and while the latter is properly styled a government of enumerated powers, yet within the limits of such enumeration, it has all the attributes of sovereignty, and, in the exercise of those enumerated powers, acts directly upon the citizen, and not through the intermediate agency of the State. . . . The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the Constitution to its care. The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the Nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the Nation to compel obedience to its laws.')
- ^In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 535 (1895) ('The United States are a nation, whose powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, within the sphere of action confided to it by the Constitution, are supreme and paramount. Every right, created by, arising under or dependent upon the Constitution, may be protected and enforced by such means, and in such manner, as Congress, in the exercise of the correlative duty of protection, or of the legislative powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, may in its discretion deem most eligible and best adapted to attain the object.' (citing Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 293 (1892))); Dobbins v. Comm'rs of Erie Cnty., 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 435, 447 (1842) ('The government of the United States is supreme within its sphere of action.'), overruled on other grounds by Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), and superseded on other grounds by statute, Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, ch. 59, 53 Stat. 574 (codified as amended at 4 U.S.C. § 111 (2006)).
- ^United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 68 (1936) ('From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.' (footnote omitted)); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 433, 444 (1869) ('The national government, though supreme within its own sphere, is one of limited jurisdiction and specific functions. It has no faculties but such as the Constitution has given it, either expressly or incidentally by necessary intendment. Whenever any act done under its authority is challenged, the proper sanction must be found in its charter, or the act is ultra vires and void.'); Briscoe v. President of the Bank of Ky., 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257, 317 (1837) ('The federal government is one of delegated powers. All powers not delegated to it, or inhibited to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people.')
- ^See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; United States v. Bd. of Com'rs, 145 F.2d 329, 330 (10th Cir. 1944) ('Congress is vested with the absolute right to designate the persons to whom real property belonging to the United States shall be transferred, and to prescribe the conditions and mode of the transfer; and a state has no power to interfere with that right or to embarrass the exercise of it. Property owned by the United States is immune from taxation by the state or any of its subdivisions.')
- ^Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 331, 347 (1885) ('The departments of the government are legislative, executive, and judicial. They are co ordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, rightfully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, anything which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful.')
- ^See Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 663 (1875) ('The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers.'); Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603, 611 (1870) ('[T]he Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States. By it the people have created a government, defined its powers, prescribed their limits, distributed them among the different departments, and directed in general the manner of their exercise. No department of the government has any other powers than those thus delegated to it by the people. All the legislative power granted by the Constitution belongs to Congress, but it has no legislative power which is not thus granted. And the same observation is equally true in its application to the executive and judicial powers granted respectively to the President and the courts. All these powers differ in kind, but not in source or in limitation. They all arise from the Constitution, and are limited by its terms.')
- ^Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629–30 (1935) ('The fundamental necessity of maintaining each of the three general departments of government entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others has often been stressed, and is hardly open to serious question. So much is implied in the very fact of the separation of the powers of these departments by the Constitution, and in the rule which recognizes their essential coequality.'); e.g., Ainsworth v. Barn Ballroom Co., 157 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1946) (judiciary has no power to review a military order barring servicemen from patronizing a certain dance hall due to separation of powers concerns because 'the courts may not invade the executive departments to correct alleged mistakes arising out of abuse of discretion[;] . . . to do so would interfere with the performance of governmental functions and vitally affect the interests of the United States')
- ^Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397, 406 (1872) ('There are within the territorial limits of each state two governments, restricted in their spheres of action but independent of each other and supreme within their respective spheres. Each has its separate departments, each has its distinct laws, and each has its own tribunals for their enforcement. Neither government can intrude within the jurisdiction, or authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers with the action of the other.')
- ^Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 590 (1839) ('It has . . . been supposed that the rules of comity between foreign nations do not apply to the states of this Union, that they extend to one another no other rights than those which are given by the Constitution of the United States, and that the courts of the general government are not at liberty to presume . . . that a state has adopted the comity of nations towards the other states as a part of its jurisprudence or that it acknowledges any rights but those which are secured by the Constitution of the United States. The Court thinks otherwise. The intimate union of these states as members of the same great political family, the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together, should lead us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to presume a greater degree of comity and friendship and kindness towards one another than we should be authorized to presume between foreign nations. . . . They are sovereign states, and the history of the past and the events which are daily occurring furnish the strongest evidence that they have adopted towards each other the laws of comity in their fullest extent.'); Bank of U.S. v. Daniel, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 32, 54 (1838) ('The respective states are sovereign within their own limits, and foreign to each other, regarding them as local governments.'); Buckner v. Finley, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 586, 590 (1829) (' For all national purposes embraced by the federal Constitution, the states and the citizens thereof are one, united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws. In all other respects, the states are necessarily foreign to and independent of each other. Their constitutions and forms of government being, although republican, altogether different, as are their laws and institutions.')
- ^Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 188 (1947) ('The power of a state to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them is, of course, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Federal Constitution.' (quoting McKnett v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506, 516 (1856) ('[A]lthough the State[s] . . . [are] sovereign within [their] territorial limits to a certain extent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted by the Constitution of the United States.')
- ^United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 95–96 (1947) ('The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.'); Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 406 ('The two governments in each state stand in their respective spheres of action in the same independent relation to each other, except in one particular, that they would if their authority embraced distinct territories. That particular consists in the supremacy of the authority of the United States when any conflict arises between the two governments.').
- ^Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 570 (1832) ('The powers given [to the federal government] are limited; and no powers, which are not expressly given, can be exercised by [it]: but, where given, they are supreme. Within the sphere allotted to them, the co- ordinate branches of the general government revolve, unobstructed by any legitimate exercise of power by the state governments. The powers exclusively given to the federal government are limitations upon the state authorities. But, with the exception of these limitations, the states are supreme; and their sovereignty can be no more invaded by the action of the general government, than the action of the state governments in arrest or obstruct the course of the national power.'), recognized as abrogated on other grounds in New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983).
- ^Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) ('Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system, the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States.').
- ^E.g., Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 372 (1876) ('Th[e federal] government is as sovereign within its sphere as the states are within theirs. True, its sphere is limited. Certain subjects only are committed to it; but its power over those subjects is as full and complete as is the power of the states over the subjects to which their sovereignty extends.'). Taken very literally, statements like this could be understood to suggest that there is no overlap between the State and Federal governments.
- ^Ex parte McNiel, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 236, 240 (1872) ('In the complex system of polity which prevails in this country, the powers of government may be divided into four classes. [1] Those which belong exclusively to the states. [2] Those which belong exclusively to the national government. [3] Those which may be exercised concurrently and independently by both. [4] Those which may be exercised by the states, but only until Congress shall see fit to act upon the subject. The authority of the state then retires and lies in abeyance until the occasion for its exercise shall recur.'); People ex rel. Woll v. Graber, 68 N.E.2d 750, 754 (Ill. 1946) ('The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are. The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, a paramount authority.'); Kersting v. Hargrove, 48 A.2d 309, 310 (N.J. Cir. Ct. 1946) ('The United States government is not a foreign sovereignty as respects the several states but is a concurrent, and within its jurisdiction, a superior sovereignty. Every citizen of New Jersey is subject to two distinct sovereignties; that of New Jersey and that of the United States. The two together form one system and the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other.').
- ^8 U.S.C.§ 1401 ('Nationals and citizens of United States at birth'); 8 U.S.C.§ 1408 ('Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth'); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., 897 F.3d 491, 493-94 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018) ('Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous.'); Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ('The sole such statutory provision that presently confers United States nationality upon non-citizens is 8 U.S.C. § 1408.'); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2003) (same); see also, generally 8 U.S.C.§ 1483 ('Restrictions on loss of nationality'); 8 U.S.C.§§ 1501–1503; 8 U.S.C.§ 1252(b)(5) ('Treatment of nationality claims').
- ^'U.S. nationals born in American Samoa sue for citizenship'. Associated Press. NBC News. March 28, 2018. Retrieved 2018-11-16. See also Mendoza, Moises (October 11, 2014). 'How a weird law gives one group American nationality but not citizenship'. Public Radio International (PRI). Retrieved 2018-11-16.
- ^See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 410–11 (1857) ('The brief preamble sets forth by whom [the Constitution] was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that [the Constitution] [was] formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary. But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.' (emphasis added)), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1, as recognized in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873). But see Dredd Scott 60 U.S. 581–82 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (arguing that 'the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth' and that the 'necessary conclusion is, that those persons born within the several States, who, by force of their respective Constitutions and laws, are citizens of the State, are thereby citizens of the United States').
- ^Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (using this particular phrasing).
- ^Cf. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 296 (1936) ('[T]he Constitution itself is in every real sense a law—the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law.'); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ('Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.' (emphasis added)); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803) ('That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. . . . The principles . . . so established are deemed fundamental. . . . This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers.' (emphases added)).
- ^Cf. League v. De Young, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 184, 203 (1851) ('The Constitution of the United States was made by, and for the protection of, the people of the United States.'); Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 (1833) ('The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. . . . The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.'), superseded on other grounds by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, as recognized in Chi., Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). While the Supreme Court did not specifically mention the Preamble in these cases, it seems apparent that it was expounding on the implications of what it understood reference to 'the People' in the Preamble to mean.
- ^Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793) (opinion of Jay, C.J.) ('[I]n establishing [the Constitution], the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, 'We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner.' (emphasis added)). abrogated by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XI, as recognized in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), and abrogated by Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 12 (1890); see also United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756) ('[The Supreme Court has] den[ied] the assumption that full and unqualified sovereignty still remains in the states or the people of a state, and affirm[ed], on the contrary, that, by express words of the constitution, solemnly ratified by the people of the United States, the national government is supreme within the range of the powers delegated to it; while the states are sovereign only in the sense that they have an indisputable claim to the exercise of all the rights and powers guarantied to them by the constitution of the United States, or which are expressly or by fair implication reserved to them.').
- ^See White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1872) ('The National Constitution was, as its preamble recites, ordained and established by the people of the United States. It created not a confederacy of States, but a government of individuals.'); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324–25 (1816) ('The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but . . . , as the preamble of the constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' . . . The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions . . . .'); cf. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 402–03 (1819) (rejecting a construction of the Constitution that would interpret it 'not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government . . . are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion;' instead, 'the [Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it . . . by assembling in convention. . . . [It] d[id] not, on . . . account [of the ratifying conventions assembling in each state], cease to be the [action] of the people themselves, or become [an action] of the state governments.').
- ^Ala. State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 463 (1945) ('Only those to whom a statute applies and who are adversely affected by it can draw in question its constitutional validity in a declaratory judgment proceeding as in any other.'); Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup, 298 U.S. 226, 227 (1936) ('One who would strike down a state statute as obnoxious to the Federal Constitution must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures him.'); Buscaglia v. Fiddler, 157 F.2d 579, 581 (1st Cir. 1946) ('It is a settled principle of law that no court will consider the constitutionality of a statute unless the record before it affords an adequate factual basis for determining whether the challenged statute applies to and adversely affects the one who draws it in question.'); Liberty Nat'l Bank v. Collins, 58 N.E.2d 610, 614 (Ill. 1944) ('The rule is universal that no one can raise a question as to the constitutionality of a statute unless he is injuriously affected by the alleged unconstitutional provisions. It is an established rule in this State that one may not complain of the invalidity of a statutory provision which does not affect him. This court will not determine the constitutionality of the provisions of an act which do not affect the parties to the cause under consideration, or where the party urging the invalidity of such provisions is not in any way aggrieved by their operation.' (citation omitted)).
- ^See, e.g., Ison v. W. Vegetable Distribs., 59 P.2d 649, 655 (Ariz. 1936) ('It is the general rule of law that when a party invokes the benefit of a statute, he may not, in one and the same breath, claim a right granted by it and reject the terms upon which the right is granted.'); State ex rel. Sorensen v. S. Neb. Power Co., 268 N.W. 284, 285 (Neb. 1936) ('[In this case,] defendants . . . invoked the statute, . . . relied upon and t[ook] advantage of it, and are now estopped to assail the statute as unconstitutional.'). It is important not to read these too broadly. For example, in In re Auditor Gen., 266 N.W. 464 (Mich. 1936), certain property had been foreclosed upon for delinquent payment of taxes. A statute changed the terms by which foreclosure sales had to be published and announced in the community. The Michigan Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to question the validity of the taxes whose nonpayment led to the foreclosure, to have standing to question the validity of the procedure by which the foreclosure sale was being conducted.
- ^E.g., Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 107 (1946) (a claim that the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 'is void in the absence of an express provision for notice and opportunity for hearing as to security holders regarding proceedings under that section [is groundless]. The short answer is that such a contention can be raised properly only by a security holder who has suffered injury due to lack of notice or opportunity for hearing. No security holder of that type is now before us. The management[] of American . . . admittedly w[as] notified and participated in the hearings . . . and . . . possess[es] no standing to assert the invalidity of that section from the viewpoint of the security holders' constitutional rights to notice and hearing'); Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, Ry. Employees Dep't, 300 U.S. 515, 558 (1937) (under the Railway Labor Act, a 'railroad can complain only of the infringement of its own constitutional immunity, not that of its employees' (citations omitted)).
- ^E.g., Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337, 353 (1937) ('Constitutional questions are not to be decided hypothetically. When particular facts control the decision they must be shown. Petitioner's contention as to impossibility of proof is premature. . . . For the present purpose it is sufficient to hold, and we do hold, that the petitioner may constitutionally be required to present all the pertinent facts in the prescribed administrative proceeding and may there raise, and ultimately may present for judicial review, any legal question which may arise as the facts are developed.' (citation omitted)).
- ^United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89–90 (1947) ('The power of courts, and ultimately of this Court, to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of this judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. A hypothetical threat is not enough.').
- ^Sparks v. Hart Coal Corp., 74 F.2d 697, 699 (6th Cir. 1934) ('It has long been settled that courts have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such act.'); e.g., Manne v. Comm'r, 155 F.2d 304, 307 (8th Cir. 1946) ('A taxpayer alleging unconstitutionality of an act must show not only that the act is invalid, but that he has sustained some direct injury as the result of its enforcement.') (citing Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)).
- ^Kuehner v. Irving Trust Co., 299 U.S. 445, 452, 453 (1937) ('While, therefore, the Fifth Amendment forbids the destruction of a contract it does not prohibit bankruptcy legislation affecting the creditor's remedy for its enforcement against the debtor's assets, or the measure of the creditor's participation therein, if the statutory provisions are consonant with a fair, reasonable, and equitable distribution of those assets. The law under consideration recognizes the petitioners' claim and permits it to share in the consideration to be distributed in reorganization. . . . It is incorrect to say that Congress took away all remedy under the lease. On the contrary, it gave a new and more certain remedy for a limited amount, in lieu of an old remedy inefficient and uncertain in its result. This is certainly not the taking of the landlord's property without due process.'); In re 620 Church St. Bldg. Corp., 299 U.S. 24, 27 (1936) ('Here the controlling finding is not only that there was no equity in the property above the first mortgage but that petitioners' claims were appraised by the court as having 'no value.' There was no value to be protected. This finding . . . [renders] the constitutional argument [that petitioners were deprived of property without due process of law] unavailing as petitioners have not shown injury.').
- ^Mauk v. United States, 88 F.2d 557, 559 (9th Cir. 1937) ('Since appellant is not indicted under or accused of violating this provision, he has no interest or standing to question its validity. That question is not before us and will not be considered.').
- ^Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373, 376–77 (1946) (person arrested for violating laws segregating buses was 'a proper person to challenge the validity of th[e] statute as a burden on commerce'; even though she was a mere passenger and not, for example, a bus operator concerned about burdens on interstate commerce, '[i]f it is an invalid burden, the conviction under it would fail. The statute affects appellant as well as the transportation company. Constitutional protection against burdens on commerce is for her benefit on a criminal trial for violation of the challenged statute').
- ^Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901) ('The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states.'); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) ('By the constitution a government is ordained and established 'for the United States of America,' and not for countries outside of their limits. The guaranties it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad.').
- ^46 F. Supp. 296 (W.D. Wash. 1942), aff'd, 138 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1943).
- ^Id. at 296 ('Upon his arraignment the [trial] court appointed counsel for the petitioner who was without funds and was a member of the armed forces of the United States at Shanghai. The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a trial before a jury of Americans, which motion was denied, and he was thereupon tried by the court. The petitioner contends that his constitutional rights were violated by his being denied a jury trial.').
- ^Id. at 299 ('The petitioner does not claim that he was not afforded a fair trial aside from the denial of his demand for a jury. Inasmuch as unquestionably he obtained a trial more to his liking than he would have obtained in Shanghai in other than an American court sitting in Shanghai, and since the Supreme Court of this country has determined that the right of trial by jury does not obtain in an American court sitting in another country pursuant to treaty, it must be held that the allegations of petitioner's petition do not entitle him to release.').
- ^Downes, 182 U.S. at 251 (emphases added). Compare, e.g., Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 234 (1901) ('[A]fter the ratification of the treaty [with Spain] and the cession of the island to the United States[,] Porto Rico then ceased to be a foreign country . . . .'), and Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, 210 U.S. 296, 310 (1908) ('[I]n case of cession to the United States; laws of the ceded country inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, so far as applicable, would cease to be of obligatory force; but otherwise the municipal laws of the acquired country continue.' (quoting Ortega v. Lara, 202 U.S. 339, 342 (1906))), with Downes, 182 U.S. at 287 ('[T]he island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States . . . .').
- ^The fact that this discussion happens to talk mainly about Puerto Rico should not be understood to imply that the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico was some sort of sui generis jurisdiction. For example, in Goetze v. United States, 182U.S.221 (1901), the Supreme Court held that this same reasoning (that a place could be under the jurisdiction of the United States, without being 'part' of the United States) applied to Hawaii before it was admitted into the Union as a State.
- ^U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
- ^De Pass v. Bidwell, 124 F. 615 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1903).
- ^See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549–50 (1876) ('The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States . . . ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law . . . .' (emphasis added)); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 724–25 (1869) ('[The Union, which had existed since colonial times,] received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 332 (1816) ('The constitution was for a new government, organized with new substantive powers, and not a mere supplementary charter to a government already existing.').
- ^SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL.D., A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH THE WORDS ARE DEDUCED FROM THEIR ORIGINALS, AND ILLUSTRATED IN THEIR DIFFERENT SIGNIFICATIONS BY EXAMPLES FROM THE BEST WRITERS. TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED, A HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE, AND An ENGLISH GRAMMAR. (THE SIXTH EDITION. city=LONDON. ed.)
- ^See Lane Cnty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869) ('The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.').
- ^Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 545 (1871) ('The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over States and people.'); id. at 554–55 (Bradley, J., concurring) ('The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government.').
- ^Meacham, Jon. (May 8, 2018), The Soul of America., Penquin/Random House.
- ^See Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916, 922–23 (E.D. La. 1960) ('Interposition is . . . based on the proposition that the United States is a compact of states, any one of which may interpose its sovereignty against the enforcement within its borders of any decision of the Supreme Court or act of Congress, irrespective of the fact that the constitutionality of the act has been established by decision of the Supreme Court. . . . In essence, the doctrine denies the constitutional obligation of the states to respect those decisions of the Supreme Court with which they do not agree. The doctrine may have had some validity under the Articles of Confederation. On their failure, however, 'in Order to form a more perfect Union,' the people, not the states, of this country ordained and established the Constitution. Thus the keystone of the interposition thesis, that the United States is a compact of states, was disavowed in the Preamble to the Constitution.' (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted)), aff'd mem., 365 U.S. 569 (1961). Although the State of Louisiana in Bush invoked a concept it called 'interposition,' it was sufficiently similar to the concept of 'nullification' that the court used the latter, more familiar term in a fashion that clearly indicated it viewed the concepts as functionally interchangeable. See id. at 923 n.7 ('[E]ven the 'compact theory' [of the Constitution] does not justify interposition. Thus, Edward Livingston, . . . though an adherent of th[e 'compact] theory['], strongly denied the right of a state to nullify federal law or the decisions of the federal courts.' (emphases added)). Compare Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ('The confederation was a compact between states; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the national government.'), with id. ('The constitution was an act of the people of the United States to supersede the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.').
- ^White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1871) ('[The Constitution] assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so.')
- ^Texas, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725–26 ('[W]hen the[] Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.'); United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756) ('The[ Supreme Court has] repudiate[d] emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will.').
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Preamble to the United States Constitution. |
Article I • Article II • Article III • Article IV • Article V • Article VI • Article VII
The signing of the Constitution took place on September 17, 1787, at the Pennsylvania State House (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia.
PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I.
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Section 2. [1] The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
[2] No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
[3] [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.] (Note: Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
[4] When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
[5] The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
THE SENATE
Section 3. [1] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,] (Note: Changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
[2] Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.] (Note: Changed by clause 2 of the Seventeenth Amendment.)
[3] No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
[4] The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
[5] The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
[6] The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
[7] Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
Section 4. [1] The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
[2] The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,] (Note: Changed by section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5. [1] Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
[2] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
[3] Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
[4] Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6. [1] The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
[2] No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.Section 7. [1] All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
[2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
[3] Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS
Section 8. [1] The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[2] To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
[3] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
[4] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
[5] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
[6] To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
[7] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
[8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
[9] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
[10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
[17] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And
[18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
POWER FORBIDDEN TO CONGRESS
Section 9. [1] The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
[2] The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[3] No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[4] No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Note: See the Sixteenth Amendment.)
[5] No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
[6] No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
[7] No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
[8] No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.Section 10. [1] No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
[2] No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
[3] No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article II.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Section 1. [1] The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows.
[2] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
[3] [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State have one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.] (Note: Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.)
[4] The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
[5] No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[6] [In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.] (Note: Changed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.)
[7] The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
[8] Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: —“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”Section 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
[2] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
[3] The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.Section 3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. [1] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; —to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; —to Controversies between two or more States, —[between a State and Citizens of another State;—] (Note: Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.) between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.] (Note: Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)
[2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
[3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3. [1] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[2] The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article IV.
RELATION OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2. [1] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
[2] A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
[3] [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.] (Note: Superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment.)
Section 3. [1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
[2] The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article V.
AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article VI.
NATIONAL DEBTS
[1] All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
SUPREMACY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VII.
RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.
In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
George Washington-President and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania | Delaware Maryland Virginia South Carolina Georgia |
Attest William Jackson Secretary
To learn more about the Constitution — the people, the events, the landmark cases — order a copy of “The U.S. Constitution & Fascinating Facts About It” today! Call to order: 1-800-887-6661 or order pocket constitution books online. |
Constitution Day | U.S. Constitution & Amendments | Declaration of Independence | Articles of Confederation | Founding Fathers | Supreme Court | Fun Zone | Constitution Quiz | Pocket Constitution | Constitution Survey
© Oak Hill Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Oak Hill Publishing Company. Box 6473, Naperville, IL 60567
For questions or comments about this site please email us at [email protected]
Constitution of the United States | |
---|---|
Jurisdiction | All States and Territories |
Created | September 17, 1787 |
Presented | September 28, 1787 |
Ratified | June 21, 1788 |
Date effective | March 4, 1789[1] |
System | Constitutional republic |
Branches | 3 |
Chambers | Bicameral |
Executive | President |
Judiciary | Supreme, Circuits, Districts |
Federalism | Federation |
Electoral college | Yes |
Entrenchments | 2, 1 still active |
First legislature | March 4, 1789 |
First executive | April 30, 1789 |
First court | February 2, 1790 |
Amendments | 27 |
Last amended | May 5, 1992 |
Location | National Archives Building |
Commissioned by | Congress of the Confederation |
Author(s) | Philadelphia Convention |
Signatories | 39 of the 55 delegates |
Media type | Parchment |
Supersedes | Articles of Confederation |
This article is part of a series on the |
Constitution of the United States of America |
---|
Preamble and Articles of the Constitution |
Amendments to the Constitution |
Unratified Amendments |
History |
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments |
This article is part of a series on the |
Politics of the United States of America |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitutional Law of the United States |
---|
Overview |
Principles |
Government structure |
Individual rights |
Theory |
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[2] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameralCongress (Article One); the executive, consisting of the President (Article Two); and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts (Article Three). Articles Four, Five and Six embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. It is regarded as the oldest written and codified national constitution in force.[3]
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended 27 times, including an amendment to repeal a previous one,[4] in order to meet the needs of a nation that has profoundly changed since the eighteenth century.[5] In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[6][7] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights protections. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the United States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions worldwide, are appended to the document. All four pages[8] of the original U.S. Constitution are written on parchment.[9]
According to the United States Senate: 'The Constitution's first three words--We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers wisely separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.'[5]
The first permanent constitution of its kind,[a] adopted by the people's representatives for an expansive nation, it is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations.
- 1Background
- 2History
- 4Original frame
- 5Ratified amendments
- 6Unratified amendments
- 7Judicial review
- 7.2Establishment
- 13References
- 15External links
Background
First government
From September 5, 1774, to March 1, 1781, the Continental Congress functioned as the provisional government of the United States. Delegates to the First (1774) and then the Second (1775–1781) Continental Congress were chosen largely through the action of committees of correspondence in various colonies rather than through the colonial or later state legislatures. In no formal sense was it a gathering representative of existing colonial governments; it represented the dissatisfied elements of the people, such persons as were sufficiently interested to act, despite the strenuous opposition of the loyalists and the obstruction or disfavor of colonial governors.[12] The process of selecting the delegates for the First and Second Continental Congresses underscores the revolutionary role of the people of the colonies in establishing a central governing body. Endowed by the people collectively, the Continental Congress alone possessed those attributes of external sovereignty which entitled it to be called a state in the international sense, while the separate states, exercising a limited or internal sovereignty, may rightly be considered a creation of the Continental Congress, which preceded them and brought them into being.[13]
Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States.[14] It was drafted by the Second Continental Congress from mid-1776 through late 1777, and ratification by all 13 states was completed by early 1781. The Articles of Confederation gave little power to the central government. The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers. Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.[15]
Although, in a way, the Congressional powers in Article 9 made the 'league of states as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation in history',[16] the chief problem was, in the words of George Washington, 'no money'.[17] The Continental Congress could print money but it was worthless. Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[17] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; some paid nothing. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[17] No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on outstanding debts as their dates came due.[17]
Internationally, the United States had little ability to defend its sovereignty. Most of the troops in the 625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening – British forts on American soil. They had not been paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[18]Spain closed New Orleans to American commerce; U.S. officials protested, but to no effect. Barbary pirates began seizing American ships of commerce; the Treasury had no funds to pay their ransom. If any military crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to finance a response.[17]
Domestically, the Articles of Confederation was failing to bring unity to the diverse sentiments and interests of the various states. Although the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed between Great Britain and the U.S., and named each of the American states, various states proceeded blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands.[17] Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreign authorities, raised armies, and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the Articles.
In September 1786, during an inter–state convention to discuss and develop a consensus about reversing the protectionist trade barriers that each state had erected, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. Connecticut paid nothing and 'positively refused' to pay U.S. assessments for two years.[19] A rumor had it that a 'seditious party' of New York legislators had opened a conversation with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be openly funding Creek Indian raids on Georgia, and the state was under martial law.[20] Additionally, during Shays' Rebellion (August 1786 – June 1787) in Massachusetts, Congress could provide no money to support an endangered constituent state. General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise funds from Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[21]
Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.[22] The Articles Congress had 'virtually ceased trying to govern'.[23] The vision of a 'respectable nation' among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Rufus King. Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.[24][25]
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government.[26] Unlike earlier attempts, the convention was not meant for new laws or piecemeal alterations, but for the 'sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation'. The convention was not limited to commerce; rather, it was intended to 'render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.' The proposal might take effect when approved by Congress and the states.[27]
History
1787 drafting
On the appointed day, May 14, 1787, only the Virginia and Pennsylvania delegations were present, and so the convention's opening meeting was postponed for lack of a quorum.[28] A quorum of seven states met and deliberations began on May 25. Eventually twelve states were represented; 74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed.[29] The delegates were generally convinced that an effective central government with a wide range of enforceable powers must replace the weaker Congress established by the Articles of Confederation.
Two plans for structuring the federal government arose at the convention's outset:
- The Virginia Plan (also known as the Large State Plan or the Randolph Plan) proposed that the legislative department of the national government be composed of a Bicameral Congress, with both chambers elected with apportionment according to population. Generally favoring the most highly populated states, it used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke to emphasize civil liberties.[30]
- The New Jersey Plan proposed that the legislative department be a unicameral body with one vote per state. Generally favoring the less-populous states, it used the philosophy of English Whigs such as Edmund Burke to rely on received procedure and William Blackstone to emphasize sovereignty of the legislature. This position reflected the belief that the states were independent entities and, as they entered the United States of America freely and individually, remained so.[31]
On May 31, the Convention devolved into a 'Committee of the Whole' to consider the Virginia Plan. On June 13, the Virginia resolutions in amended form were reported out of committee. The New Jersey plan was put forward in response to the Virginia Plan.
A 'Committee of Eleven' (one delegate from each state represented) met from July 2 to 16[32] to work out a compromise on the issue of representation in the federal legislature. All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states. For the legislature, two issues were to be decided: how the votes were to be allocated among the states in the Congress, and how the representatives should be elected. In its report, now known as the Connecticut Compromise (or 'Great Compromise'), the committee proposed proportional representation for seats in the House of Representatives based on population (with the people voting for representatives), and equal representation for each State in the Senate (with each state's legislators generally choosing their respective senators), and that all money bills would originate in the House.[33]
The Great Compromise ended the stalemate between 'patriots' and 'nationalists', leading to numerous other compromises in a spirit of accommodation. There were sectional interests to be balanced by the Three-Fifths Compromise; reconciliation on Presidential term, powers, and method of selection; and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.
On July 24, a 'Committee of Detail' – John Rutledge (South Carolina), Edmund Randolph (Virginia), Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts), Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut), and James Wilson (Pennsylvania) – was elected to draft a detailed constitution reflective of the Resolutions passed by the convention up to that point.[34] The Convention recessed from July 26 to August 6 to await the report of this 'Committee of Detail'. Overall, the report of the committee conformed to the resolutions adopted by the Convention, adding some elements. A twenty-three article (plus preamble) constitution was presented.[35]
From August 6 to September 10, the report of the committee of detail was discussed, section by section and clause by clause. Details were attended to, and further compromises were effected.[32][34] Toward the close of these discussions, on September 8, a 'Committee of Style and Arrangement' – Alexander Hamilton (New York), William Samuel Johnson (Connecticut), Rufus King (Massachusetts), James Madison (Virginia), and Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania) – was appointed to distill a final draft constitution from the twenty-three approved articles.[34] The final draft, presented to the convention on September 12, contained seven articles, a preamble and a closing endorsement, of which Morris was the primary author.[29] The committee also presented a proposed letter to accompany the constitution when delivered to Congress.[36]
The final document, engrossed by Jacob Shallus,[37] was taken up on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result, a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summed up, addressing the Convention: 'There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.' He would accept the Constitution, 'because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best'.[38]
The advocates of the Constitution were anxious to obtain unanimous support of all twelve states represented in the Convention. Their accepted formula for the closing endorsement was 'Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present.' At the end of the convention, the proposal was agreed to by eleven state delegations and the lone remaining delegate from New York, Alexander Hamilton.[39]
1788 ratification
Transmitted to the Congress of the Confederation, then sitting in New York City, it was within the power of Congress to expedite or block ratification of the proposed Constitution. The new frame of government that the Philadelphia Convention presented was technically only a revision of the Articles of Confederation. After several days of debate, Congress voted to transmit the document to the thirteen states for ratification according to the process outlined in its Article VII. Each state legislature was to call elections for a 'Federal Convention' to ratify the new Constitution, rather than consider ratification itself; a departure from the constitutional practice of the time, designed to expand the franchise in order to more clearly embrace 'the people'. The frame of government itself was to go into force among the States so acting upon the approval of nine (i.e. two-thirds of the 13) states; also a departure from constitutional practice, as the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states.
Three members of the Convention – Madison, Gorham, and King – were also Members of Congress. They proceeded at once to New York, where Congress was in session, to placate the expected opposition. Aware of their vanishing authority, Congress, on September 28, after some debate, resolved unanimously to submit the Constitution to the States for action, 'in conformity to the resolves of the Convention',[40] but with no recommendation either for or against its adoption.
Two parties soon developed, one in opposition, the Anti-Federalists, and one in support, the Federalists, of the Constitution; and the Constitution was debated, criticized, and expounded upon clause by clause. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, under the name of Publius, wrote a series of commentaries, now known as The Federalist Papers, in support of ratification in the state of New York, at that time a hotbed of anti-Federalism. These commentaries on the Constitution, written during the struggle for ratification, have been frequently cited by the Supreme Court as an authoritative contemporary interpretation of the meaning of its provisions. The dispute over additional powers for the central government was close, and in some states ratification was effected only after a bitter struggle in the state convention itself.
On June 21, 1788, the constitution had been ratified by the minimum of nine states required under Article VII. Towards the end of July, and with eleven states then having ratified, the process of organizing the new government began. The Continental Congress, which still functioned at irregular intervals, passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation with the eleven states that had then ratified it.[41] The federal government began operations under the new form of government on March 4, 1789. However, the initial meeting of each chamber of Congress had to be adjourned due to lack of a quorum.[42] George Washington was inaugurated as the nation's first president 8 weeks later, on April 30. The final two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, both subsequently ratified the Constitution – November 21, 1789, and May 29, 1790, respectively.
Influences
Enlightenment and Rule of law |
John Locke Two Treatises of Government life, liberty and property |
Several ideas in the Constitution were new. These were associated with the combination of consolidated government along with federal relationships with constituent states.
The Due Process Clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law and on Magna Carta (1215), which had become a foundation of English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a ruler.
Among the most prominent political theorists of the late eighteenth century were William Blackstone, John Locke, and Montesquieu.[43]
Both the influence of Edward Coke and William Blackstone were evident at the Convention. In his Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward Coke interpreted Magna Carta protections and rights to apply not just to nobles, but to all British subjects. In writing the Virginia Charter of 1606, he enabled the King in Parliament to give those to be born in the colonies all rights and liberties as though they were born in England. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were the most influential books on law in the new republic.
British political philosopher John Locke following the Glorious Revolution (1688) was a major influence expanding on the contract theory of government advanced by Thomas Hobbes. Locke advanced the principle of consent of the governed in his Two Treatises of Government. Government's duty under a social contract among the sovereign people was to serve the people by protecting their rights. These basic rights were life, liberty and property.
Montesquieu's influence on the framers is evident in Madison's Federalist No. 47 and Hamilton's Federalist No. 78. Jefferson, Adams, and Mason were known to read Montesquieu.[44]Supreme Court Justices, the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, have cited Montesquieu throughout the Court's history.[45] (See, e.g., Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1, 1, 36 (1823). United States v. Wood, 39 U.S. 430, 438 (1840). Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 116 (1926). Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 442 (1977). Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 U.S. 1310, 1330 (2016). ) Montesquieu emphasized the need for balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny (reflecting the influence of Polybius's 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the Roman Republic). In his The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu argues that the separation of state powers should be by its service to the people's liberty: legislative, executive and judicial.
A substantial body of thought had been developed from the literature of republicanism in the United States, including work by John Adams and applied to the creation of state constitutions.
The constitution was a federal one, and was influenced by the study of other federations, both ancient and extant.
The United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[46] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid 'cruel and unusual punishments'. Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
Original frame
Neither the Convention which drafted the Constitution, nor the Congress which sent it to the thirteen states for ratification in the autumn of 1787, gave it a lead caption. To fill this void, the document was most often titled 'A frame of Government' when it was printed for the convenience of ratifying conventions and the information of the public.[47] This Frame of Government consisted of a preamble, seven articles and a signed closing endorsement.
Printable Us Constitution Full Text Free
Preamble
The preamble to the Constitution serves as an introductory statement of the document's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It neither assigns powers to the federal government,[48] nor does it place specific limitations on government action. Rather, it sets out the origin, scope and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in 'We, the people of the United States'. This echoes the Declaration of Independence. 'One people' dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, 'to form a more perfect Union' than had previously existed in the 'perpetual Union' of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to 'secure the blessings of liberty', which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation, but for all who came after, 'our posterity'.[49]
Article One
Article One describes the Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 1, reads, 'All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.' The article establishes the manner of election and the qualifications of members of each body. Representatives must be at least 25 years old, be a citizen of the United States for seven years, and live in the state they represent. Senators must be at least 30 years old, be a citizen for nine years, and live in the state they represent.
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare; to regulate commerce, bankruptcies, and coin money. To regulate internal affairs, it has the power to regulate and govern military forces and militias, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. It is to provide for naturalization, standards of weights and measures, post offices and roads, and patents; to directly govern the federal district and cessions of land by the states for forts and arsenals. Internationally, Congress has the power to define and punish piracies and offenses against the Law of Nations, to declare war and make rules of war. The final Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress without the Articles' requirement for express delegation for each and every power. Article I, Section 9 lists eight specific limits on congressional power.
The Supreme Court has sometimes broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article One to allow Congress to enact legislation that is neither expressly allowed by the enumerated powers nor expressly denied in the limitations on Congress. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to take action that would 'enable [it] to perform the high duties assigned to it [by the Constitution] in the manner most beneficial to the people',[50] even if that action is not itself within the enumerated powers. Chief Justice Marshall clarified: 'Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.'[50]
Article Two
Article Two describes the office, qualifications, and duties of the President of the United States and the Vice President. The President is head of the executive branch of the federal government, as well as the nation's head of state and head of government.
Article two is modified by the 12th Amendment which tacitly acknowledges political parties, and the 25th Amendment relating to office succession. The president is to receive only one compensation from the federal government. The inaugural oath is specified to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
The president is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and state militias when they are mobilized. He or she makes treaties with the advice and consent of a two-thirds quorum of the Senate. To administer the federal government, the president commissions all the offices of the federal government as Congress directs; he or she may require the opinions of its principal officers and make 'recess appointments' for vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate. The president is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, though he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding Congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers. The president reports to Congress on the State of the Union, and by the Recommendation Clause, recommends 'necessary and expedient' national measures. The president may convene and adjourn Congress under special circumstances.
Section 4 provides for removal of the president and other federal officers. The president is removed on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article Three
Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. There shall be one court called the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and an appeals process. Congress enacts law defining crimes and providing for punishment. Article Three also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason.
Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, and with it, the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Also included is the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution outlines the U.S. judicial system. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress began to fill in details. Currently, Title 28 of the U.S. Code[51] describes judicial powers and administration.
As of the First Congress, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit to sit as panels to hear appeals from the district courts.[b] In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts (circuit courts) with exclusive jurisdiction heard regional appeals before consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that it does not have to hear every case that is brought to it.[51]
To enforce judicial decisions, the Constitution grants federal courts both criminal contempt and civil contempt powers. The court's summary punishment for contempt immediately overrides all other punishments applicable to the subject party. Other implied powers include injunctive relief and the habeas corpus remedy. The Court may imprison for contumacy, bad-faith litigation, and failure to obey a writ of mandamus. Judicial power includes that granted by Acts of Congress for rules of law and punishment. Judicial power also extends to areas not covered by statute. Generally, federal courts cannot interrupt state court proceedings.[51]
Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case.[c]
Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states,[52] and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party. Cases arising under the laws of the United States and its treaties come under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Cases under international maritime law and conflicting land grants of different states come under federal courts. Cases between U.S. citizens in different states, and cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens, come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed.[51]
No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Precedent has since established that the courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch. Two conflicting federal laws are under 'pendent' jurisdiction if one presents a strict constitutional issue. Federal court jurisdiction is rare when a state legislature enacts something as under federal jurisdiction.[d] To establish a federal system of national law, considerable effort goes into developing a spirit of comity between federal government and states. By the doctrine of 'Res judicata', federal courts give 'full faith and credit' to State Courts.[e] The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case by case basis, and only by strict Constitutional necessity, independent of state legislators motives, their policy outcomes or its national wisdom.[f]
Section 3 bars Congress from changing or modifying Federal law on treason by simple majority statute. This section also defines treason, as an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. Accusations must be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Congress is a political body and political disagreements routinely encountered should never be considered as treason. This allows for nonviolent resistance to the government because opposition is not a life or death proposition. However, Congress does provide for other lesser subversive crimes such as conspiracy.[g]
Article Four
Article Four outlines the relations among the states and between each state and the federal government. In addition, it provides for such matters as admitting new states and border changes between the states. For instance, it requires states to give 'full faith and credit' to the public acts, records, and court proceedings of the other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts may be admitted. The 'privileges and immunities' clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens. For instance, in criminal sentencing, a state may not increase a penalty on the grounds that the convicted person is a non-resident.
It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often arduous and costly. The Territorial Clause gives Congress the power to make rules for disposing of federal property and governing non-state territories of the United States. Finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect them from invasion and violence.
Article Five
Article Five outlines the process for amending the Constitution. Eight state constitutions in effect in 1787 included an amendment mechanism. Amendment making power rested with the legislature in three of the states and in the other five it was given to specially elected conventions. The Articles of Confederation provided that amendments were to be proposed by Congress and ratified by the unanimous vote of all thirteen state legislatures. This proved to be a major flaw in the Articles, as it created an insurmountable obstacle to constitutional reform. The amendment process crafted during the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention was, according to The Federalist No. 43, designed to establish a balance between pliancy and rigidity:[53]
It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.
There are two steps in the amendment process. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly adopted and ratified before they change the Constitution. First, there are two procedures for adopting the language of a proposed amendment, either by (a) Congress, by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or (b) national convention (which shall take place whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures collectively call for one). Second, there are two procedures for ratifying the proposed amendment, which requires three-fourths of the states' (presently 38 of 50) approval: (a) consent of the state legislatures, or (b) consent of state ratifying conventions. The ratification method is chosen by Congress for each amendment.[54] State ratifying conventions were used only once, for the Twenty-first Amendment.[55]
Presently, the Archivist of the United States is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S. Code§ 106b. The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the states for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor. Each Governor then formally submits the amendment to their state's legislature. When a state ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the state's action. Ratification documents are examined by the Office of the Federal Register for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature.[56]
Article Five ends by shielding certain clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. Article One, Section 9, Clauses 1 prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808, plus the fourth clause from that same section, which reiterates the Constitutional rule that direct taxes must be apportioned according to state populations. These clauses were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so, Congress approved legislation prohibiting the importation of slaves into the country. On February 3, 1913, with ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress gained the authority to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. The third textually entrenched provision is Article One, Section 3, Clauses 1, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. The shield protecting this clause from the amendment process is less absolute – 'no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate' – but permanent.
Article Six
Article Six establishes the Constitution, and all federal laws and treaties of the United States made according to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that 'the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding.' It validates national debt created under the Articles of Confederation and requires that all federal and state legislators, officers, and judges take oaths or affirmations to support the Constitution. This means that the states' constitutions and laws should not conflict with the laws of the federal constitution and that in case of a conflict, state judges are legally bound to honor the federal laws and constitution over those of any state. Article Six also states 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'
Article Seven
Article Seven describes the process for establishing the proposed new frame of government. Anticipating that the influence of many state politicians would be Antifederalist, delegates to the Philadelphia Convention provided for ratification of the Constitution by popularly elected ratifying conventions in each state. The convention method also made it possible that judges, ministers and others ineligible to serve in state legislatures, could be elected to a convention. Suspecting that Rhode Island, at least, might not ratify, delegates decided that the Constitution would go into effect as soon as nine states (two-thirds rounded up) ratified.[57] Once ratified by this minimum number of states, it was anticipated that the proposed Constitution would become this Constitution between the nine or more that signed. It would not cover the four or fewer states that might not have signed.[58]
Closing endorsement
The signing of the United States Constitution occurred on September 17, 1787, when 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention endorsed the constitution created during the convention. In addition to signatures, this closing endorsement, the Constitution's eschatocol, included a brief declaration that the delegates' work has been successfully completed and that those whose signatures appear on it subscribe to the final document. Included are, a statement pronouncing the document's adoption by the states present, a formulaic dating of its adoption, and the signatures of those endorsing it. Additionally, the convention's secretary, William Jackson, signed the document to authenticate the validity of the delegate signatures. He also made a few secretarial notes.
The language of the concluding endorsement, conceived by Gouverneur Morris and presented to the convention by Benjamin Franklin, was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates. Advocates for the new frame of government, realizing the impending difficulty of obtaining the consent of the states needed to make it operational, were anxious to obtain the unanimous support of the delegations from each state. It was feared that many of the delegates would refuse to give their individual assent to the Constitution. Therefore, in order that the action of the Convention would appear to be unanimous, the formula, Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present ... was devised.[59]
The document is dated: 'the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord' 1787, and 'of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.' This two-fold epoch dating serves to place the Constitution in the context of the religious traditions of Western civilization and, at the same time, links it to the regime principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. This dual reference can also be found in the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance.[59]
The closing endorsement serves an authentication function only. It neither assigns powers to the federal government nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. It does however, provide essential documentation of the Constitution's validity, a statement of 'This is what was agreed to.' It records who signed the Constitution, and when and where.
Ratified amendments
Currently housed in the National Archives.
The Constitution has twenty-seven amendments. Structurally, the Constitution's original text and all prior amendments remain untouched. The precedent for this practice was set in 1789, when Congress considered and proposed the first several Constitutional amendments. Among these, Amendments 1–10 are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and Amendments 13–15 are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Excluding the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which was pending before the states for 202 years, 225 days, the longest pending amendment that was successfully ratified was the Twenty-second Amendment, which took 3 years, 343 days. The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in the shortest time, 100 days. The average ratification time for the first twenty-six amendments was 1 year, 252 days, for all twenty-seven, 9 years, 48 days.
A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States). There is no further step. The text requires no additional action by Congress or anyone else after ratification by the required number of states.[60] Thus, when the Office of the Federal Register verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the nation's frame of government. This certification is published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification process has been successfully completed.[56]
Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, and 3)
The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and right to petition. Its Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person's right to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to freely exercise that belief, and its Establishment Clause prevents the federal government from creating an official national church or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. The amendment guarantees an individual's right to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas, even unpopular ones. It also guarantees an individual's right to physically gather or associate with others in groups for economic, political or religious purposes. Additionally, it guarantees an individual's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[61]
The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals[62][63] to keep and bear arms.[64][65][66][67] Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons.[68][69] Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, 'when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?'[70]
The Third Amendment (1791) prohibits the federal government from forcing individuals to provide lodging to soldiers in their homes during peacetime without their consent. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the Quartering Acts passed by the British Parliament during the Revolutionary War, which had allowed British soldiers to take over private homes for their own use.[71]
Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)
The Fourth Amendment (1791) protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer or to a demand for a blood test to a search of an individual's home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime. It also imposes certain limitations on police investigating a crime and prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial.[72]
The Fifth Amendment (1791) establishes the requirement that a trial for a major crime may commence only after an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury; protects individuals from double jeopardy, being tried and put in danger of being punished more than once for the same criminal act; prohibits punishment without due process of law, thus protecting individuals from being imprisoned without fair procedures; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to reveal to the police, prosecutor, judge, or jury any information that might incriminate or be used against him or her in a court of law. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without 'just compensation', the basis of eminent domain in the United States.[73]
The Sixth Amendment (1791) provides several protections and rights to an individual accused of a crime. The accused has the right to a fair and speedy trial by a local and impartial jury. Likewise, a person has the right to a public trial. This right protects defendants from secret proceedings that might encourage abuse of the justice system, and serves to keep the public informed. This amendment also guarantees a right to legal counsel if accused of a crime, guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused, and guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against them. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that, with the Fifth Amendment, this amendment requires what has become known as the Miranda warning.[74]
The Seventh Amendment (1791) extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Although the Seventh Amendment itself says that it is limited to 'suits at common law', meaning cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law, the amendment has been found to apply in lawsuits that are similar to the old common law cases. For example, the right to a jury trial applies to cases brought under federal statutes that prohibit race or gender discrimination in housing or employment. Importantly, this amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial only in federal court, not in state court.[75]
The Eighth Amendment (1791) protects people from having bail or fines set at an amount so high that it would be impossible for all but the richest defendants to pay and also protects people from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Although this phrase originally was intended to outlaw certain gruesome methods of punishment, it has been broadened over the years to protect against punishments that are grossly disproportionate to or too harsh for the particular crime. This provision has also been used to challenge prison conditions such as extremely unsanitary cells, overcrowding, insufficient medical care and deliberate failure by officials to protect inmates from one another.[76]
Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9 and 10)
The Ninth Amendment (1791) declares that individuals have other fundamental rights, in addition to those stated in the Constitution. During the Constitutional ratification debates Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. The Federalists opposed it on grounds that a list would necessarily be incomplete but would be taken as explicit and exhaustive, thus enlarging the power of the federal government by implication. The Anti-Federalists persisted, and several state ratification conventions refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added what became the Ninth Amendment as a compromise. Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as 'unenumerated'. The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and the right to make important decisions about one's health care or body.[77]
The Tenth Amendment (1791) was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles or in subsequent constitutional amendments. Any power not listed is, says the Tenth Amendment, left to the states or the people. While there is no specific list of what these 'reserved powers' may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations, commerce within a state's own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.[78]
Free Copy Of Us Constitution
Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, and 21)
The Eleventh Amendment (1795) specifically prohibits federal courts from hearing cases in which a state is sued by an individual from another state or another country, thus extending to the states sovereign immunity protection from certain types of legal liability. Article Three, Section 2, Clause 1 has been affected by this amendment, which also overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia.[79][80]
The Sixteenth Amendment (1913) removed existing Constitutional constraints that limited the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on income. Specifically, the apportionment constraints delineated in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 have been removed by this amendment, which also overturned an 1895 Supreme Court decision, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., that declared an unapportioned federal income tax on rents, dividends, and interest unconstitutional. This amendment has become the basis for all subsequent federal income tax legislation and has greatly expanded the scope of federal taxing and spending in the years since.[81]
The Eighteenth Amendment (1919) prohibited the making, transporting, and selling of alcoholic beverages nationwide. It also authorized Congress to enact legislation enforcing this prohibition. Adopted at the urging of a national temperance movement, proponents believed that the use of alcohol was reckless and destructive and that prohibition would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, decrease the need for welfare and prisons, and improve the health of all Americans. During prohibition, it is estimated that alcohol consumption and alcohol related deaths declined dramatically. But prohibition had other, more negative consequences. The amendment drove the lucrative alcohol business underground, giving rise to a large and pervasive black market. In addition, prohibition encouraged disrespect for the law and strengthened organized crime. Prohibition came to an end in 1933, when this amendment was repealed.[82]
The Twenty-first Amendment (1933) repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and returned the regulation of alcohol to the states. Each state sets its own rules for the sale and importation of alcohol, including the drinking age. Because a federal law provides federal funds to states that prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors under the age of twenty-one, all fifty states have set their drinking age there. Rules about how alcohol is sold vary greatly from state to state.[83]
Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26)
The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and authorized Congress to enforce abolition. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, their post Civil War status was unclear, as was the status of other millions.[84] Congress intended the Thirteenth Amendment to be a proclamation of freedom for all slaves throughout the nation and to take the question of emancipation away from politics. This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution.[85]
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons 'subject to U.S. jurisdiction'. It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. This amendment, according to the Supreme Court's Doctrine of Incorporation, makes most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments as well. It superseded the mode of apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and also overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[86]
The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the use of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in determining which citizens may vote. The last of three post Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, it sought to abolish one of the key vestiges of slavery and to advance the civil rights and liberties of former slaves.[87]
The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the government from denying women the right to vote on the same terms as men. Prior to the amendment's adoption, only a few states permitted women to vote and to hold office.[88]
The Twenty-third Amendment (1961) extends the right to vote in presidential elections to citizens residing in the District of Columbia by granting the District electors in the Electoral College, as if it were a state. When first established as the nation's capital in 1800, the District of Columbia's five thousand residents had neither a local government, nor the right to vote in federal elections. By 1960 the population of the District had grown to over 760,000 people.[89]
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) prohibits a poll tax for voting. Although passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments helped remove many of the discriminatory laws left over from slavery, they did not eliminate all forms of discrimination. Along with literacy tests and durational residency requirements, poll taxes were used to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections. The Supreme Court has since struck down these discriminatory measures, opening democratic participation to all.[90]
The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the government from denying the right of United States citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. The drive to lower the voting age was driven in large part by the broader student activism movement protesting the Vietnam War. It gained strength following the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell.[91]
Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 27)
The Twelfth Amendment (1804) modifies the way the Electoral College chooses the President and Vice President. It stipulates that each elector must cast a distinct vote for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. It also suggests that the President and Vice President should not be from the same state. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 is superseded by this amendment, which also extends the eligibility requirements to become President to the Vice President.[92]
The Seventeenth Amendment (1913) modifies the way senators are elected. It stipulates that senators are to be elected by direct popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article 1, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2, under which the two senators from each state were elected by the state legislature. It also allows state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.[93]
The Twentieth Amendment (1933) changes the date on which a new President, Vice President and Congress take office, thus shortening the time between Election Day and the beginning of Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms.[94] Originally, the Constitution provided that the annual meeting was to be on the first Monday in December unless otherwise provided by law. This meant that, when a new Congress was elected in November, it did not come into office until the following March, with a 'lame duck' Congress convening in the interim. By moving the beginning of the president's new term from March 4 to January 20 (and in the case of Congress, to January 3), proponents hoped to put an end to lame duck sessions, while allowing for a speedier transition for the new administration and legislators.[95]
The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. However, under some circumstances it is possible for an individual to serve more than eight years. Although nothing in the original frame of government limited how many presidential terms one could serve, the nation's first president, George Washington, declined to run for a third term, suggesting that two terms of four years were enough for any president. This precedent remained an unwritten rule of the presidency until broken by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to a third term as president 1940 and in 1944 to a fourth.[96]
The Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967) clarifies what happens upon the death, removal, or resignation of the President or Vice President and how the Presidency is temporarily filled if the President becomes disabled and cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the office. It supersedes the ambiguous succession rule established in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. A concrete plan of succession has been needed on multiple occasions since 1789. However, for nearly 20% of U.S. history, there has been no vice president in office who can assume the presidency.[97]
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992) prevents members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during the current session. Rather, any raises that are adopted must take effect during the next session of Congress. Its proponents believed that Federal legislators would be more likely to be cautious about increasing congressional pay if they have no personal stake in the vote. Article One, section 6, Clause 1 has been affected by this amendment, which remained pending for over two centuries as it contained no time limit for ratification.[98]
Unratified amendments
Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[99] Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to actually go through the constitutional ratification process.
Six amendments approved by Congress and proposed to the states for consideration have not been ratified by the required number of states to become part of the Constitution. Four of these are technically still pending, as Congress did not set a time limit (see also Coleman v. Miller) for their ratification. The other two are no longer pending, as both had a time limit attached and in both cases the time period set for their ratification expired.
Still pending
- The Congressional Apportionment Amendment (proposed 1789) would, if ratified, establish a formula for determining the appropriate size of the House of Representatives and the appropriate apportionment of representatives among the states following each constitutionally mandated decennial census. At the time it was sent to the states for ratification, an affirmative vote by ten states would have made this amendment operational. In 1791 and 1792, when Vermont and Kentucky joined the Union, the number climbed to twelve. Thus, the amendment remained one state shy of the number needed for it to become part of the Constitution. No additional states have ratified this amendment since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional twenty-seven would be required. The Apportionment Act of 1792 apportioned the House of Representatives at 33,000 persons per representative in consequence of the 1790 census. Reapportionment has since been effected by statute.
- The Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed 1810) would, if ratified, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. When submitted to the states, ratification by thirteen states was required for it to become part of the Constitution; eleven had done so by early 1812. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union that year (April 30, 1812), the ratification threshold rose to fourteen. Thus, when New Hampshire ratified it in December 1812, the amendment again came within two states of being ratified. No additional states have ratified this amendment since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional twenty-six would be required.
- The Corwin Amendment (proposed 1861) would, if ratified, shield 'domestic institutions' of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. This proposal was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[100] Five states ratified the amendment in the early 1860s, but none have since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional 33 states would be required. The subject of this proposal was subsequently addressed by the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.
- The Child Labor Amendment (proposed 1924) would, if ratified, specifically authorize Congress to limit, regulate and prohibit labor of persons less than eighteen years of age. The amendment was proposed in response to Supreme Court rulings in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) that found federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 unconstitutional. When submitted to the states, ratification by 36 states was required for it to become part of the Constitution, as there were forty-eight states. Twenty-eight had ratified the amendment by early 1937, but none have done so since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional ten would be required.[101] A federal statute approved June 25, 1938, regulated the employment of those under 16 or 18 years of age in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), found this law constitutional, effectively overturning Hammer v. Dagenhart. As a result of this development, the movement pushing for the amendment concluded.[102]
No longer pending
- The Equal Rights Amendment (proposed 1972) would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights (discrimination) by the federal or state governments on account of sex. A seven-year ratification time limit was initially placed on the amendment, but as the deadline approached, Congress granted a three-year extension. Thirty-five states ratified the proposed amendment prior to the original deadline, three short of the number required for it to be implemented (five of them later voted to rescind their ratification). No further states ratified the amendment within the extended deadline, thus it failed to be adopted. On March 22, 2017, the 45th anniversary of Congress' submission of the ERA to the nation's state lawmakers, the Nevada Legislature became the first to ratify the ERA after the expiration of both deadlines[103] with its adoption of Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 (designated as 'POM-15' by the U.S. Senate and published verbatim in the Congressional Record of April 5, 2017, at pages S2361 and S2362).[104] The Illinois General Assembly ratified the ERA on May 30, 2018.
- The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (proposed 1978) would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the 23rd Amendment, granted the District unconditional Electoral College voting rights, and allowed its participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. A seven-year ratification time limit was placed on the amendment. Sixteen states ratified the amendment (twenty-two short of the number required for it to be implemented) prior to the deadline, thus it failed to be adopted.
Judicial review
The way the Constitution is understood is influenced by court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to as precedents. Judicial review is the power of the Court to examine federal legislation, federal executive, and all state branches of government, to decide their constitutionality, and to strike them down if found unconstitutional.
Judicial review includes the power of the Court to explain the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to particular cases. Over the years, Court decisions on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases have changed the way many constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.
Legislation passed to implement the Constitution, or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many federal executive agencies have a similar effect. If an action of Congress or the agencies is challenged, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether these actions are permissible under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is'.[h]
Scope and theory
Courts established by the Constitution can regulate government under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. First, they have jurisdiction over actions by an officer of government and state law. Second, federal courts may rule on whether coordinate branches of national government conform to the Constitution. Until the twentieth century, the Supreme Court of the United States may have been the only high tribunal in the world to use a court for constitutional interpretation of fundamental law, others generally depending on their national legislature.[105]
|
The basic theory of American Judicial review is summarized by constitutional legal scholars and historians as follows: the written Constitution is fundamental law. It can change only by extraordinary legislative process of national proposal, then state ratification. The powers of all departments are limited to enumerated grants found in the Constitution. Courts are expected (a) to enforce provisions of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and (b) to refuse to enforce anything in conflict with it.[106]
In Convention. As to judicial review and the Congress, the first proposals by Madison (Va) and Wilson (Pa) called for a supreme court veto over national legislation. In this it resembled the system in New York, where the Constitution of 1777 called for a 'Council of Revision' by the Governor and Justices of the state supreme court. The Council would review and in a way, veto any passed legislation violating the spirit of the Constitution before it went into effect. The nationalist's proposal in Convention was defeated three times, and replaced by a presidential veto with Congressional over-ride. Judicial review relies on the jurisdictional authority in Article III, and the Supremacy Clause.[107]
The justification for judicial review is to be explicitly found in the open ratifications held in the states and reported in their newspapers. John Marshall in Virginia, James Wilson in Pennsylvania and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut all argued for Supreme Court judicial review of acts of state legislature. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton advocated the doctrine of a written document held as a superior enactment of the people. 'A limited constitution can be preserved in practice no other way' than through courts which can declare void any legislation contrary to the Constitution. The preservation of the people's authority over legislatures rests 'particularly with judges'.[108][i]
The Supreme Court was initially made up of jurists who had been intimately connected with the framing of the Constitution and the establishment of its government as law. John Jay (New York), a co-author of The Federalist Papers, served as Chief Justice for the first six years. The second Chief Justice for a term of four years, was Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut), a delegate in the Constitutional Convention, as was John Rutledge (South Carolina), Washington's recess appointment as Chief Justice who served in 1795. John Marshall (Virginia), the fourth Chief Justice, had served in the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. His service on the Court would extend 34 years over some of the most important rulings to help establish the nation the Constitution had begun. In the first years of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Convention who would serve included James Wilson (Pennsylvania) for ten years, John Blair Jr. (Virginia) for five, and John Rutledge (South Carolina) for one year as Justice, then Chief Justice in 1795.
Establishment
When John Marshall followed Oliver Ellsworth as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1801, the federal judiciary had been established by the Judiciary Act, but there were few cases, and less prestige. 'The fate of judicial review was in the hands of the Supreme Court itself.' Review of state legislation and appeals from state supreme courts was understood. But the Court's life, jurisdiction over state legislation was limited. The Marshall Court's landmark Barron v. Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, and not the states.[108]
In the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, the Supreme Court asserted its authority of judicial review over Acts of Congress. Its findings were that Marbury and the others had a right to their commissions as judges in the District of Columbia. Marshall, writing the opinion for the majority, announced his discovered conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III.[j][110][k] In this case, both the Constitution and the statutory law applied to the particulars at the same time. 'The very essence of judicial duty' according to Marshall was to determine which of the two conflicting rules should govern. The Constitution enumerates powers of the judiciary to extend to cases arising 'under the Constitution'. Further, justices take a Constitutional oath to uphold it as 'Supreme law of the land'.[111] Therefore, since the United States government as created by the Constitution is a limited government, the Federal courts were required to choose the Constitution over Congressional law if there were deemed to be a conflict.
'This argument has been ratified by time and by practice...'[l][m] The Supreme Court did not declare another Act of Congress unconstitutional until the controversial Dred Scott decision in 1857, held after the voided Missouri Compromise statute had already been repealed. In the eighty years following the Civil War to World War II, the Court voided Congressional statutes in 77 cases, on average almost one a year.[113]
Something of a crisis arose when, in 1935 and 1936, the Supreme Court handed down twelve decisions voiding Acts of Congress relating to the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt then responded with his abortive 'court packing plan'. Other proposals have suggested a Court super-majority to overturn Congressional legislation, or a Constitutional Amendment to require that the Justices retire at a specified age by law. To date, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review has persisted.[109]
Self-restraint
The power of judicial review could not have been preserved long in a democracy unless it had been 'wielded with a reasonable measure of judicial restraint, and with some attention, as Mr. Dooley said, to the election returns.' Indeed, the Supreme Court has developed a system of doctrine and practice that self-limits its power of judicial review.[114]
The Court controls almost all of its business by choosing what cases to consider, writs of certiorari. In this way, it can avoid opinions on embarrassing or difficult cases. The Supreme Court limits itself by defining for itself what is a 'justiciable question.' First, the Court is fairly consistent in refusing to make any 'advisory opinions' in advance of actual cases.[n] Second, 'friendly suits' between those of the same legal interest are not considered. Third, the Court requires a 'personal interest', not one generally held, and a legally protected right must be immediately threatened by government action. Cases are not taken up if the litigant has no standing to sue. Simply having the money to sue and being injured by government action are not enough.[114]
These three procedural ways of dismissing cases have led critics to charge that the Supreme Court delays decisions by unduly insisting on technicalities in their 'standards of litigability'. They say cases are left unconsidered which are in the public interest, with genuine controversy, and resulting from good faith action. 'The Supreme Court is not only a court of law but a court of justice.'[115]
Separation of powers
The Supreme Court balances several pressures to maintain its roles in national government. It seeks to be a co-equal branch of government, but its decrees must be enforceable. The Court seeks to minimize situations where it asserts itself superior to either President or Congress, but federal officers must be held accountable. The Supreme Court assumes power to declare acts of Congress as unconstitutional but it self-limits its passing on constitutional questions.[116] But the Court's guidance on basic problems of life and governance in a democracy is most effective when American political life reinforce its rulings.[117]
Justice Brandeis summarized four general guidelines that the Supreme Court uses to avoid constitutional decisions relating to Congress:[o] The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law nor decide open questions unless a case decision requires it. If it does, a rule of constitutional law is formulated only as the precise facts in the case require. The Court will choose statutes or general law for the basis of its decision if it can without constitutional grounds. If it does, the Court will choose a constitutional construction of an Act of Congress, even if its constitutionality is seriously in doubt. [116]
Likewise with the Executive Department, Edwin Corwin observed that the Court does sometimes rebuff presidential pretensions, but it more often tries to rationalize them. Against Congress, an Act is merely 'disallowed'. In the executive case, exercising judicial review produces 'some change in the external world' beyond the ordinary judicial sphere.[118] The 'political question' doctrine especially applies to questions which present a difficult enforcement issue. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes addressed the Court's limitation when political process allowed future policy change, but a judicial ruling would 'attribute finality'. Political questions lack 'satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination'.[119]
John Marshall recognized that the president holds 'important political powers' which as Executive privilege allows great discretion. This doctrine was applied in Court rulings on President Grant's duty to enforce the law during Reconstruction. It extends to the sphere of foreign affairs. Justice Robert Jackson explained, Foreign affairs are inherently political, 'wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government ... [and] not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.'[120]
Critics of the Court object in two principal ways to self-restraint in judicial review, deferring as it does as a matter of doctrine to Acts of Congress and Presidential actions.
- Its inaction is said to allow 'a flood of legislative appropriations' which permanently create an imbalance between the states and federal government.
- Supreme Court deference to Congress and the executive compromises American protection of civil rights, political minority groups and aliens.[121]
Subsequent Courts
Supreme Courts under the leadership of subsequent Chief Justices have also used judicial review to interpret the Constitution among individuals, states and federal branches. Notable contributions were made by the Chase Court, the Taft Court, the Warren Court, and the Rehnquist Court.
Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointee, serving as Chief Justice from 1864 to 1873. His career encompassed service as a U.S. Senator and Governor of Ohio. He coined the slogan, 'Free soil, free Labor, free men.' One of Lincoln's 'team of rivals', he was appointed Secretary of Treasury during the Civil War, issuing 'greenbacks'. To appease radical Republicans, Lincoln appointed him to replace Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of Dred Scott case fame.
In one of his first official acts, Chase admitted John Rock, the first African-American to practice before the Supreme Court. The 'Chase Court' is famous for Texas v. White, which asserted a permanent Union of indestructible states. Veazie Bank v. Fenno upheld the Civil War tax on state banknotes. Hepburn v. Griswold found parts of the Legal Tender Acts unconstitutional, though it was reversed under a late Supreme Court majority.
|
William Howard Taft was a Harding appointment to Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930. A Progressive Republican from Ohio, he was a one-term President.
As Chief Justice, he advocated the Judiciary Act of 1925 that brought the Federal District Courts under the administrative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Taft successfully sought the expansion of Court jurisdiction over non- states such as District of Columbia and Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.
In 1925, the Taft Court issued a ruling overturning a Marshall Court ruling on the Bill of Rights. In Gitlow v. New York, the Court established the doctrine of 'incorporation which applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Important cases included the Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen that upheld Congressional regulation of commerce. Olmstead v. United States allowed exclusion of evidence obtained without a warrant based on application of the 14th Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches. Wisconsin v. Illinois ruled the equitable power of the United States can impose positive action on a state to prevent its inaction from damaging another state.
Earl Warren was an Eisenhower nominee, Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969. Warren's Republican career in the law reached from County Prosecutor, California state attorney general, and three consecutive terms as Governor. His programs stressed progressive efficiency, expanding state education, re-integrating returning veterans, infrastructure and highway construction.
In 1954, the Warren Court overturned a landmark Fuller Court ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment interpreting racial segregation as permissible in government and commerce providing 'separate but equal' services. Warren built a coalition of Justices after 1962 that developed the idea of natural rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education banned segregation in public schools. Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims established Court ordered 'one-man-one-vote'. Bill of Rights Amendments were incorporated into the states. Due process was expanded in Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona. First Amendment rights were addressed in Griswold v. Connecticut concerning privacy, and Engel v. Vitale relative to free speech.
William Rehnquist was a Reagan appointment to Chief Justice, serving from 1986 to 2005. While he would concur with overthrowing a state supreme court's decision, as in Bush v. Gore, he built a coalition of Justices after 1994 that developed the idea of federalism as provided for in the Tenth Amendment. In the hands of the Supreme Court, the Constitution and its Amendments were to restrain Congress, as in City of Boerne v. Flores.
Nevertheless, the Rehnquist Court was noted in the contemporary 'culture wars' for overturning state laws relating to privacy prohibiting late-term abortions in Stenberg v. Carhart, prohibiting sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, or ruling so as to protect free speech in Texas v. Johnson or affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Civic religion
There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the documents of the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, as being a cornerstone of a type of civil religion. This is suggested by the prominent display of the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, in massive, bronze-framed, bulletproof, moisture-controlled glass containers vacuum-sealed in a rotunda by day and in multi-ton bomb-proof vaults by night at the National Archives Building.[122]
The idea of displaying the documents struck one academic critic looking from the point of view of the 1776 or 1789 America as 'idolatrous, and also curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution'.[122] By 1816, Jefferson wrote that '[s]ome men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched'. But he saw imperfections and imagined that there could potentially be others, believing as he did that 'institutions must advance also'.[123]
Some commentators depict the multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian United States as held together by a political orthodoxy, in contrast with a nation state of people having more 'natural' ties.[124][125]
Worldwide influence
The United States Constitution has been a notable model for governance around the world. Its international influence is found in similarities of phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and recognition of individual rights. The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and judicial review has motivated constitutionalists at times when they were considering the possibilities for their nation's future.[126] It informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War,[t] his contemporary and ally Benito Juárez of Mexico,[u] and the second generation of 19th-century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of the Philippines[v] and Sun Yat-sen of China.[w] Since the latter half of the 20th century, the influence of the United States Constitution may be waning as other countries have revised their constitutions with new influences.[132][133]
Criticisms
The United States Constitution has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1787.
The Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote.[134][135][136] Until the Reconstruction Amendments were adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War, the Constitution did not abolish slavery, nor give citizenship and voting rights to former slaves.[137] These amendments did not include a specific prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex; it took another amendment – the Nineteenth, ratified in 1920 – for the Constitution to prohibit any United States citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.[138]
See also
- Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story (three volumes)
- List of national constitutions (world countries)
Related documents
- Mayflower Compact (1620)
- Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)
- Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641)
- Bill of Rights 1689 – English Bill of Rights
- United States Declaration of Independence (1776)
- Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779)
- Constitution of Massachusetts (1780)
Notes
- ^Historically, the first written constitution of an independent polity which was adopted by representatives elected by the people was the 1755 Corsican Constitution, despite being short-lived, drafted by Pasquale Paoli, whose work was an inspiration for many American patriots,[10] including the Hearts of Oak, originally named 'The Corsicans', and the Sons of Liberty.[11]
Earlier written constitutions of independent states exist but were not adopted by bodies elected by the people, such as the Swedish Constitution of 1772, adopted by the king, the Constitution of San Marino of 1600 which is the oldest surviving constitution in the world, or the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk, the first establishing separation of powers.
- ^The Judiciary Act of 1789 established six Supreme Court justices. The number was periodically increased, reaching ten in 1863, allowing Lincoln additional appointments. After the Civil War, vacancies reduced the number to seven. Congress finally fixed the number at nine.
- ^The four concepts which determine 'justiciability', the formula for a federal court taking and deciding a case, are the doctrines of (a) standing, (b) real and substantial interests, (c) adversity, and (d) avoidance of political questions.[51]
- ^Judicial Review is explained in Hamilton's Federalist No. 78. It also has roots in Natural Law expressions in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court first ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison, the second was Dred Scott.[51]
- ^For instance, 'collateral estoppel' directs that when a litigant wins in a state court, they cannot sue in federal court to get a more favorable outcome.
- ^Recently numerous habeas corpus reforms have tried to preserve a working 'relationship of comity' and simultaneously streamline the process for state and lower courts to apply Supreme Court interpretations.[51]
- ^Contrary to this source when viewed, the Constitution provides that punishments, including forfeiture of income and property, must apply to the person convicted. 'No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture' on the convicted traitor's children or heirs. This avoids the perpetuation of civil war into the generations by Parliamentary majorities as in the Wars of the Roses.[51]
- ^Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 261 (1901), commenting on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820); Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 529–530, 536 (1905)(concurring opinions of Justices Harlan and Brown), that once the Constitution has been extended to an area, its coverage is irrevocable; Boumediene v. Bush – That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.
- ^The Supreme Court found 658 cases of invalid state statutes from 1790 to 1941 before the advent of civil rights cases in the last half of the twentieth century[109]
- ^In this, John Marshall leaned on the argument of Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.
- ^Although it may be that the true meaning of the Constitution to the people of the United States in 1788 can only be divined by a study of the state ratification conventions, the Supreme Court has used The Federalist Papers as a supplemental guide to the Constitution since their co-author, John Jay, was the first Chief Justice.
- ^The entire quote reads, 'This argument has been ratified by time and by practice, and there is little point in quibbling with it. Of course, the President also takes an oath to support the Constitution.'[112]
- ^The presidential reference is to Andrew Jackson's disagreement with Marshall's Court over Worcester v. Georgia, finding Georgia could not impose its laws in Cherokee Territory. Jackson replied, 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!', and the Trail of Tears proceeded. Jackson would not politically interpose the U.S. Army between Georgia and the Cherokee people as Eisenhower would do between Arkansas and the integrating students.
- ^'Advisory opinions' are not the same as 'declaratory judgments.' (a) These address rights and legal relationships in cases of 'actual controversy', and (b) the holding has the force and effect of a final judgment. (c) There is no coercive order, as the parties are assumed to follow the judgment, but a 'declaratory judgment' is the basis of any subsequent ruling in case law.
- ^Louis Brandeis concurring opinion, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 1936.
- ^The Chase Court, 1864–1873, in 1865 were the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice, U.S.; Hon. Nathan Clifford, Maine; Stephen J. Field, Justice Supreme Court, U.S.; Hon. Samuel F. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court; Hon. Noah H. Swayne, Justice Supreme Court, U.S.; Judge Morrison R. Waite
- ^The Taft Court, 1921–1930, in 1925 were James Clark McReynolds, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., William Howard Taft (Chief Justice), Willis Van Devanter, Louis Brandeis. Edward Sanford, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Fiske Stone
- ^The Warren Court, 1953–1969, in 1963 were Felix Frankfurter; Hugo Black; Earl Warren (Chief Justice); Stanley Reed; WIlliam O. Douglas. Tom Clark; Robert H. Jackson; Harold Burton; Sherman Minton
- ^The Rehnquist Court, 1986–2005.
- ^'Secession was indeed unconstitutional ... military resistance to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.[127] 'the primary purpose of the Constitution was ... to create 'a more perfect union' ... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.[128]
- ^Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.[129]
- ^The institutions of the two countries which have most influenced constitutional development are Spain and the United States'. One of the reforms, 'sine quibus non', to use the words of Rizal and Mabini, always insisted upon by the Filipinos, was Philippine representation in the Spanish Cortez, the promulgation in the Islands of the Spanish Constitution, and the complete assimilation equal to that of any in the Spanish provinces on the continent.[130]
- ^In the modern history of China, there were many revolutionaries who tried to seek the truth from the West in order to overthrow the feudal system of the Qing dynasty. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, for example, was much influenced by American democracy, especially the U.S. Constitution.[131]
References
Footnotes
- ^16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 10; 'The Constitution went into effect in March of 1789.' Referring to Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420, 5 L. Ed. 124 (1820), 'The present Constitution of the United States did not commence its operation until the first Wednesday in March, 1789.'
- ^Maier 2010, p. 35
- ^Goodlatte says U.S. has the oldest working national constitution, Politifact Virginia website, September 22, 2014.
- ^United States Senate (1992). 'Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America'(PDF). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation(PDF)
|format=
requires|url=
(help). U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 25 n.2. ISBN9780160632686. - ^ ab'Constitution Day'. Senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved September 10, 2016.
- ^Ritchie, Donald. 'Bill of Rights'. Annenberg Classroom – Glossary. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved September 21, 2014.
- ^Lloyd, Gordon. 'Introduction to the Bill of Rights'. TeachingAmericanHistory.org. The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University. Retrieved September 21, 2014.
- ^'America's Founding Documents'. October 30, 2015.
- ^'Differences between Parchment, Vellum and Paper'. August 15, 2016.
- ^'Pasquale Paoli – Corsican statesman'.
- ^Ruppert, Bob. 'Paoli: Hero of the Sons of Liberty'. Journal of the American Revolution. Retrieved May 20, 2017.
- ^McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1936). 'A constitutional History of the United States'. New York, London: D. Appleton-Century Company. pp. 83–90. Archived from the original on September 16, 2014. Retrieved August 27, 2014.
- ^Morris, Richard B. (December 28, 1976). Presidential Address (Speech). American Historical Association. Retrieved June 8, 2014.
- ^Fritz, Christian G. (2008). American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN978-0-521-88188-3; noting that 'Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood' the Articles of Confederation 'to be the first federal Constitution'.
- ^Jensen, Merrill (1950). The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781–1789. Boston: Northeastern University Press. pp. 177–233. ISBN978-0-930350-14-7.
- ^Wood, Gordon S. (1972). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 359. ISBN978-0-807-84723-7.
- ^ abcdefMaier 2010, pp. 11–13
- ^Maier 2010, pp. 12–13, 19.
- ^Bowen 2010, pp. 129–130.
- ^Bowen 2010, p. 31.
- ^Maier 2010, pp. 15–16.
- ^Maier 2010, p. 13.
- ^Wood 1998, pp. 356–367, 359.
- ^Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.
- ^Dawes, Thomas. An Oration, Delivered July 4, 1787, at the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Celebration of the Anniversary of American Independence, pp.15-19, printed by Samuel Hall, Boston, 1787.
- ^'Resolution of Congress, 21 Feb. 1787'. The Founders' Constitution. University of Chicago Press; The Articles Congress thus echoed a previous resolution of a conference at Annapolis; see 'Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government: 1786'.
- ^Maier 2010, p. 21
- ^Maier 2010, p. 27
- ^ ab'America's Founding Fathers-Delegates to the Constitutional Convention'. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^'Variant Texts of the Virginia Plan, Presented by Edmund Randolph to the Federal Convention'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^'The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison : on June 15'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^ ab'Committee Assignments Chart and Commentary'. Ashland, Ohio: TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^'Madison Debates July 16'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
- ^ abc'Committees at the Constitutional Convention'. U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^'Madison Debates August 6'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^'Madison Debates September 12'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^Vile, John R. (2005). The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding (Volume 1: A-M). ABC-CLIO. p. 705. ISBN1-85109-669-8. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
- ^'Madison Debates September 15'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
- ^Wright Jr., Robert K.; MacGregor Jr., Morris J. 'Appendix A: The Annapolis Convention'. Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution. Washington D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History. p. 264. LCCN87001353. CMH Pub 71-25.
- ^'Resolution of Congress of September 28, 1787, Submitting the Constitution to the Several States'. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved August 31, 2014.
- ^'Resolution of the Congress, of September 13, 1788, Fixing Date for Election of a President, and the Organization of the Government Under the Constitution, in the City of New York' – via Avalon Project.
- ^'March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history'. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. March 4, 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2018.
- ^Manning, John F. (2011). 'Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation'. Harvard Law Review. 124 (1): 1939–2039.
- ^Carpenter, William Seal (1928). 'The Separation of Powers in the Eighteenth Century'. American Political Science Review. 22 (1): 32–44.
- ^Nielson, Aaron (April 10, 2016). 'D.C. Circuit Reviewed: The Baron Montesquieu'.
- ^National Archives and Records Administration. 'National Archives Article on the Bill of Rights'. Retrieved December 16, 2007.
- ^Kilpatrick, James J., ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Foreword by Denys P. Myers. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government. p. i (of foreword).[full citation needed]
- ^See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ('Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.'); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) ('The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.' (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
- ^Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
- ^ ab17. U.S. at 421
- ^ abcdefghO'Connor 2010.
- ^FindLaw for legal professionalsArchived January 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, with links to United States Government Printing office official Web site, Cornell Law School, Emory Law School, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893, (1998, 2000 Supplement). Viewed November 28, 2011. 'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved November 29, 2011.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
- ^England, Trent & Spalding, Matthew. 'Essays on Article V: Amendments'. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
- ^'Proposed Amendments'. Constitution Day Observance Events. Clayton State University.
- ^Lutz, Donald (1994). 'Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment'. The American Political Science Review.
- ^ ab'The Constitutional Amendment Process'. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
- ^Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 312.
- ^Lloyd, Gordon. 'The Six Stages of Ratification of the Constitution: Stage I – Now For the Bad News'. TeachingAmericanHistory.org. The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
- ^ abSpaulding, Matthew. 'Attestation Clause'. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
- ^Neale, Thomas H. 'The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues'(PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original(PDF) on August 31, 2014. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment I'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Fletcher v. Haas, 11-10644-DPW (D. Mass. March 30, 2012).
- ^Pierce, John (April 2, 2012). 'Permanent Resident Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights Too'. Monachus Lex.[self-published source]
- ^Constitutional Law. Casenotes. December 6, 2009. ISBN9780735589452.[full citation needed]
- ^Jilson, Cal (January 4, 2013). American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. ISBN9781136269691.[full citation needed]
- ^Shaman, Jeffrey. 'After Heller: What Now for the Second Amendment'. Santa Clara Law Review. Retrieved January 30, 2014.[full citation needed]
- ^'US Senate Annotated Constitution'. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment II'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Epstein, Lee & Walk, Thomas G. (2012). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice (8th ed.). CQ Press. pp. 395–396. ISBN978-1-4522-2674-3.
- ^Moncure 1990.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment III'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment IV'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment V'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment VI'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment VII'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment VIII'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment IX'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment X'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^'Annotation 1: Eleventh Amendment, State Immunity'. FindLaw. Retrieved May 4, 2013.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XI'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XVI'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XVIII'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXI'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^'The Emancipation Proclamation'. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XIII'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XIV'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XV'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XIX'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXIII'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXIV'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXVI'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XII'. Annenberg Classroom. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XVII'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^'CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Twentieth Amendment'.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XX'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXII'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXV'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^Monk, Linda. 'Amendment XXVII'. www.annenbergclassroom.org. Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
- ^'Capitol Questions'. C-SPAN. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
- ^Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 609.
- ^Kilpatrick, James J., ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government. pp. 68–69.
- ^Griffin, Stephen M. (1998). American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 89. ISBN9780691002408.
- ^Colin Dwyer; Carrie Kaufman (March 21, 2017). 'Nevada Ratifies The Equal Rights Amendment ... 35 Years After The Deadline'. NPR. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
- ^'Congressional Record - April 5, 2017'(PDF).
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 134.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 136.
- ^Pritchett 1959, pp. 137–138.
- ^ abPritchett 1959, p. 138.
- ^ abPritchett 1959, p. 142.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 140.
- ^Pritchett 1959, pp. 140–141.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 141.
- ^Pritchett 1959, pp. 141–142.
- ^ abPritchett 1959, p. 145.
- ^Pritchett 1959, pp. 148–149.
- ^ abPritchett 1959, p. 149.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 154.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 150.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 151.
- ^Pritchett 1959, pp. 150–151.
- ^Pritchett 1959, p. 153.
- ^ abWood, Gordon S., (August 14, 1997). 'Dusting off the Declaration'. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
- ^Levinson 1987, p. 115.
- ^Levinson 1987, p. 118.
- ^Levinson 1987, p. 119.
- ^Billias 2009, xi–xv.
- ^Farber 2003, p. 3.
- ^Farber 2003, p. 198.
- ^Stacy 2003, p. 436.
- ^Malcolm 1920, p. 109.
- ^Qing Yu 1988, p. 193.
- ^'The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution'. Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School of GovernmentShorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2015.
- ^Law, David S.; Versteeg, Mila (2012). 'The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution'. New York University Law Review. 87 (3): 762–858. SSRN1923556.
- ^'Expansion of Rights and Liberties – The Right of Suffrage'. Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original on July 6, 2016. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
- ^'U.S. Voting Rights'. Infoplease. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
- ^'Voting in Early America'. Colonial Williamsburg. Spring 2007. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
- ^Foner, Eric. 'The Reconstruction Amendments: Official Documents as Social History'. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved December 5, 2012.
- ^'The Constitution: The 19th Amendment'. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved December 5, 2012.
Works cited
- Adler, Mortimer & Gorman, William (1975). The American Testament: for the Institute for Philosophical Research and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. New York: Praeger. ISBN978-0-275-34060-5.
- Billias, George (2009). American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776–1989: A Global Perspective. New York: New York University Press. ISBN978-0-8147-9107-3.
- Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Little, Brown. ISBN978-0-316-10261-2.
- Farber, Daniel (2003). Lincoln's Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-23793-0.
- Levinson, Sanford (1987). 'Pledging Faith in the Civil Religion; Or, Would You Sign the Constitution?'. William & Mary Law Review. 29 (113). Retrieved December 15, 2011.
- Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-0-684-86854-7.
- Malcolm, George A. (1920). 'Constitutional History of the Philippines'. American Bar Association Journal. 6.
- Moncure Jr., Thomas M. (1990). 'Who is the Militia: The Virginia Ratification Convention and the Right to Bear Arms'(PDF). Lincoln Law Review. 19: 1–25. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
- O'Connor, Tom (2010). 'Constitutional Structure'. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- Pritchett, C. Herman (1959). The American Constitution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Qing Yu, Li (1988). 'Dr. Sun Yat Sen and the U.S. Constitution'. In Starr, Joseph Barton (ed.). The United States Constitution: Its Birth, Growth, and Influence in Asia. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ISBN978-962-209-201-3.
- Stacy, Lee, ed. (2003). Mexico and the United States. vol. 2. London: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN978-0-7614-7402-9.
- Wood, Gordon (1998). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0-8078-4723-7.
Further reading
- Bailyn, Bernard, ed. (1993). The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle for Ratification. Part One: September 1787 to February 1788. The Library of America.
- Bailyn, Bernard, ed. (1993). The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle for Ratification. Part Two: January to August 1788. The Library of America. ISBN0-940450-64-X.
- Bryce, James, viscount (1891). The American Commonwealth. vol. 1 (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. pp. [350]–397, [636]–645, 669–682, et passim.
- Casey, Gregory (Spring 1974). 'The Supreme Court and Myth: An Empirical Investigation'. Law & Society Review. 8 (3): 385–420. doi:10.2307/3053081. JSTOR3053081.
- Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Vol. 1, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Journal of Federal Convention, Vol. 2, State Conventions Massachusetts, Connecticut., New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vol. 3, Virginia, Vol. 4, North. and South. Carolina, Resolutions, Tariffs, Banks, Debt, Vol. 5 Debates in Congress, Madison's Notes, Misc. Letters.
- Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. (1888). Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During its Discussion by the People, 1787–1788. Brooklyn, NY; Pamphlets written between 1787–88 by Elbridge Gerry, Noah Webster, John Jay, Melancthon Smith, Pelatiah Werster, Tench Coxe, James Wilson, John Dickinson, Alexander Contee Hanson, Edmund Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and David Ramsay. The essay attributed to Gerry was in fact written by Mercy Otis Warren.
- Fritz, Christian G. (2008). American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War. Cambridge University Press.
- Garvey, John H., ed. (2004). Modern Constitutional Theory: A Reader (5th ed.). ISBN978-0314149053.
- Hall, Kermit (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Kaminski, John P.; Saladino, Gaspare J.; Leffler, Richard; Schoenleber, Charles H. & Hogan, Margaret A. (eds.). Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, 1976-. Published volumes 1–10, 13–23, forthcoming volumes 11–12, 24–29. Most recent volume: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. 23, Ratification by the States: New York, No. 5. Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin. ISBN978-0-87020-439-5.
- Klos, Stanley L. (2004). President Who? Forgotten Founders. Pittsburgh, PA: Evisum. p. 261. ISBN0-9752627-5-0.
- Kurland, Philip B. & Lerner, Ralph (eds.). The Founders' Constitution. University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. ISBN0-86597-279-6; The work consists of 'extracts from the leading works of political theory, history, law, and constitutional argument on which the Framers and their contemporaries drew and which they themselves produced'.
- Levy, Leonard W.; Karst, Kenneth L. & West, John G., eds. (1992). Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan.
- Mason, Alpheus Thomas & Stephenson, Donald Grier, eds. (2004). American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases (14th ed.).[full citation needed]
- McDonald, Forrest (1985). Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN978-0-7006-0311-4.
- Robertson, David Brian (2013). The Original Compromise: What the Constitutional Framers Were Really Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Tribe, Laurence H. (1999). American Constitutional Law.[full citation needed]
- Yale Law School. 'The Avalon Project: Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention'. The Avalon Project. Yale Law School. Retrieved May 8, 2011.
External links
U.S. government sources
- Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States: legal analysis and interpretation of the Constitution, based primarily on Supreme Court case law
- United States Constitution: Library of Congress web guide to Constitution related primary documents and resources
- America's Founding Documents: original text and articles exploring the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights
- Constitution of the United States: original text of each clause in the Constitution with an accompanying explanation of its meaning and how that meaning has changed over time
Non-governmental sources
- Constitution of the United States of America at the Encyclopædia Britannica
- Audio reading of the Constitution in MP3 format provided by the University of Chicago Law School
- Mobile friendly version of the Constitution