s*f
发帖数: 1071 | 1 Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people
may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
-Trump
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827996357252243456 | b********e
发帖数: 1100 | 2 啊，原来不是我说了算啊
【在 s*f 的大作中提到】
: Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people
: may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
: -Trump
: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827996357252243456
| a*****1
发帖数: 3817 | 3 自己去看美国宪法
United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Constitution
Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created
September 17, 1787
Ratified
June 21, 1788
Date effective
March 4, 1789; 227 years ago
Location
National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Author(s)
Philadelphia Convention
Signatories
39 of the 55 delegates
Purpose
To replace the Articles of Confederation (1777)
This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
Preamble
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII ·
VIII ·
IX ·
X
XI ·
XII ·
XIII ·
XIV ·
XV ·
XVI ·
XVII ·
XVIII ·
XIX ·
XX ·
XXI ·
XXII ·
XXIII ·
XXIV ·
XXV ·
XXVI ·
XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment ·
Titles of Nobility ·
Corwin ·
Child Labor ·
Equal Rights ·
D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline
Convention ·
Signing
Federalism ·
Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII ·
Amendments I–X
Amendments XI–XXVII ·
Unratified Amendments
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal ·
U.S. Government portal ·
Law portal ·
Wikipedia book
v ·
t ·
e
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Seal of the United States Congress.svg
United States House of Representatives 2017.svg115th United States Senate.
svg
Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
Seal of the United States Senate.svg
Executive[show]
Seal of the President of the United States.svg
Judiciary[show]
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]
Other countries ·
Atlas
v ·
t ·
e
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of
America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles,
delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles
entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal
government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of
the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the
judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles
Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights
and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship
to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure
subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-
seven times[2] to meet the changing needs of a nation now profoundly
different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.[3]
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.[4][5] 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 end of
the document. All four pages[6] of the original U.S. Constitution are
written on parchment.[7]
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."[3]
The first constitution of its kind, 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.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical context 1.1 First government
1.2 Articles of Confederation
2 1787 Drafting
3 1788 Ratification
4 Influences
5 Original frame 5.1 Preamble
5.2 Article One
5.3 Article Two
5.4 Article Three
5.5 Article Four
5.6 Article Five
5.7 Article Six
5.8 Article Seven
5.9 Closing endorsement
6 Ratified amendments 6.1 Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 3)
6.2 Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
6.3 Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 10)
6.4 Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 21)
6.5 Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26)
6.6 Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27)
7 Unratified amendments 7.1 Still pending
7.2 No longer pending
8 Judicial review 8.1 Scope and theory
8.2 Establishment 8.2.1 Self-restraint
8.2.2 Separation of powers
8.3 Subsequent Courts
9 Civic religion
10 Worldwide influence
11 Criticisms
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References 14.1 Footnotes
14.2 Works cited
15 Further reading
16 External links 16.1 U.S. government sources
16.2 Non-governmental sources
Historical context
See also: History of the United States Constitution
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.[8] 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.[9]
Articles of Confederation
Main article: Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution
of the United States.[10] 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. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central
government's power was quite limited. 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.[11]
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",[12] the chief problem with the new government
under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington,
"no money".[13] The Continental Congress could print money; but, by 1786,
the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a
useless object or person was ... not worth a Continental, referring to the
Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[
13] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing, as did New
Jersey in 1785. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national
debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[13] No interest was paid on debt
owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on
outstanding debts as their dates came due.[13]
Internationally, the Articles of Confederation did little to enhance the
United States' ability to defend its sovereignty. Most of the troops in the
625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening –
British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been
paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[14] 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 extortionate demands. If any extant or new military
crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to
finance a response.[13]
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 individual states proceeded
blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted
Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the
protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[13]
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.
During Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts, Congress could provide no money to
support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for
its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise
funds from Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[15] During the next
Convention, 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
.[16] 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 white settlers in
Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah (then-capital of Georgia) had been
fortified, and the state of Georgia was under martial law.[17]
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.[18] The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to
govern".[19] 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.[20]
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of
state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government.[21] 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.[22]
1787 Drafting
Main article: Constitutional Convention (United States)
Signing the Constitution, September 17, 1787
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.[23] 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.[24] 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. Their depth of knowledge and experience in self-
government was remarkable. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams
in London, "It really is an assembly of demigods." According to one view,
the Framers embraced the federal ambiguities in the constitutional text
allowing for compromise and cooperation about broad concepts rather than
dictating specific policies for the future.[25]
Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition, and any one delegate
could be found using both or a mixture depending on the subject under
discussion: foreign affairs, the economy, national government, or federal
relationships among the states. 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.[26]
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.[27]
On May 31, the Convention devolved into a "Committee of the Whole" to
consider the fifteen propositions of the Virginia Plan in their numerical
order. These discussions continued until June 13, when 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[28] 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 legislatures generally voting for their respective
senators), and that all money bills would originate in the House.[29]
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.[30] 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.[31]
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.[28][30] 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.[30] 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.[24] The
committee also presented a proposed letter to accompany the constitution
when delivered to Congress.[32]
The final document, engrossed by Jacob Shallus,[33] 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".[34]
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.[35]
1788 Ratification
Transmitted to the United States in Congress Assembled then sitting in New
York City, the new Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress
recommending the ratification process outlined in the Constitution. Each
state legislature was to call elections for a "Federal Convention" to ratify
the new Constitution. They expanded the franchise beyond the Constitutional
requirement to more nearly embrace "the people". Eleven ratified in 1787 or
1788, and all thirteen had done so by 1790. The Congress of the
Confederation certified eleven states to begin the new government, and
called the states to hold elections to begin operation. It then dissolved
itself on March 4, 1789, the day the first session of the Congress of the
United States began. George Washington was inaugurated as President two
months later.
Territorial extent of the United States, 1790
It was within the power of the old Congress of the Confederation to expedite
or block the ratification of the new Constitution. The document that the
Philadelphia Convention presented was technically only a revision of the
Articles of Confederation. But the last article of the new instrument
provided that when ratified by conventions in nine states (or two-thirds at
the time), it should go into effect among the States so acting.
Then followed an arduous process of ratification of the Constitution by
specially constituted conventions. The need for only nine states' approval
was a controversial decision at the time, since 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",[36] 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.
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals –
passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into
operation with eleven states.[37] North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified
by May 1790.
Influences
Further information: History of the United States Constitution
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (June 2012) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The
specific problem is: not encyclopedic Please help improve this section if
you can. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message
)
Enlightenment and Rule of law
John Locke by Herman Verelst.png
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.
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 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.[38] 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.[39] This Frame of
Government consisted of a preamble, seven articles and a signed closing
endorsement.
Preamble
"We the People" in an original edition
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,[40] 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".[41]
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",[42] 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."[42]
Article Two
Article Two describes the office of the President of the United States. 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 describes the office, qualifications and duties of the President
of the United States and the Vice President. It 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[43] 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.[a] 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.[43]
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.[43]
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. Also
required is of broad enough concern in the Court's jurisdiction that a lower
court, either federal or state, does not geographically cover all the
existing cases before law. Courts following these guidelines exercise
judicial restraint. Those making an exception are said to be judicial
activist.[b]
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,[44] 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.[43]
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.[c] 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
.[d] 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.[e]
Section 3 bars Congress from changing or modifying Federal law on treason by
simple majority statute. Treason is also defined in this section. It's not
enough merely to think a treasonous thought, there must be 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 less subversive crimes and punishments such
as conspiracy.[f]
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, e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of
crimes within Michigan.
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:[45]
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.[46] State ratifying conventions were used only
once, for the Twenty-first Amendment.[47]
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.[48]
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 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.[49] 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.[50]
Closing endorsement
Closing endorsement section of the United States Constitution
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.[51]
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.[51]
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
United States Bill of Rights
Currently housed in the National Archives.
See also: List of amendments to the United States Constitution
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
.[52] 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.[48]
Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 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 if the ideas are unpopular. It also guarantees
an individual's right to physically gather with a group of people to picket
or protest; 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.[53]
The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals[54][55] to
keep and bear arms.[56][57][58][59] 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 similar devices.[60][61]
Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates,
the widespread desire for such an 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?"[62]
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 widespread desire for such an 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.[63]
Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 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.[64]
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.[65]
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.[66]
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.[67]
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.[68]
Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 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. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against
the addition of a Bill of Rights was that, because it was impossible to list
every fundamental right, it would be dangerous to list just some of them,
for fear of suggesting that the list was explicit and exhaustive, thus
enlarging the power of the federal government by implication. The Anti-
Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights, and consequently 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 keep personal
matters private and to make important decisions about one's health care or
body.[69]
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 that occurs within a state's own borders, and
local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to
the states or the people.[70]
Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 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.[71][72]
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 a 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.[73]
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.[74]
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.[75]
Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 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.[76] 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.[77]
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. The mode of
apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause
3 has been superseded by that of this amendment, which also overturned the
Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[78]
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.[79]
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.[80]
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. However, while its residents had all the
responsibilities of citizenship, such as paying federal taxes, and could be
drafted to serve in the military, citizens in thirteen states with lower
populations had more voting rights than District residents.[81]
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, regardless of one's ability to pay.[82]
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
, which held that Congress may set requirements for voting in federal
elections, but not for state or local elections. The measure, which
overturns the Mitchell decision, is another in a line of constitutional
changes that expanded the right to vote to more citizens.[83]
Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 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. The electoral process delineated by Article II,
Section 1, Clause 3 has been superseded by that of this amendment, which
also extends the eligibility requirements to become President to the Vice
President.[84]
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.[85]
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.[86] Originally, the Constitution provided that the
annual meeting was to be on the first Monday in December unless otherwise
provided by law. The Articles Congress had determined, as a transitional
measure to the new constitution, that the date for "commencing proceedings"
under the U.S. Constitution would be March 4, 1789.[87] This became the date
on which new federal officials took office in subsequent years. 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. However, as transportation and communications improved, this
became an unnecessarily long delay. 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.[88]
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.[89]
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
plan of succession has frequently been necessary. Eight presidents have died
in office and one resigned from office mid-term. Similarly, seven vice
presidents have died in office and two resigned mid-term. This has meant
that for nearly 20% of U.S. history, there has been no Vice-President in
office who can assume the Presidency.[90]
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.[91]
Unratified amendments
Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200
amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[92] 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.[93] Three states
ratified the amendment in the early 1860s, but none have since. To become
part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional thirty-five
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.[94] 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.[95]
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, thus it failed to be adopted.
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
See also: Judicial review in the United States, Judicial review, and Appeal
§ Appellate 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".[g]
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.[96]
Early Court roots in the founding
John Jay, 1789–1795
New York co-author
The Federalist Papers
John Marshall, 1801–1835
Fauquier County delegate
Virginia Ratification Convention
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.[97]
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.[98]
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".[99][h]
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.[99]
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. The law afforded Marbury a remedy at court. Then
Marshall, writing the opinion for the majority, announced his discovered
conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III.[i]
[101][j] 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".[102]
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
between them.
"This argument has been ratified by time and by practice..."[k][l] "Marshall
The Supreme Court did not declare another Act of Congress unconstitutional
until the disastrous 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.[104]
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.[100]
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.[105]
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.[m] 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.[105]
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". Under the Court's
practice, there are cases 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."[106]
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.[107] 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.[108]
Justice Brandeis summarized four general guidelines that the Supreme Court
uses to avoid constitutional decisions relating to Congress:[n] 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. [107]
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.[109] 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".[110]
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."[111]
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.
1.Its inaction is said to allow "a flood of legislative appropriations"
which permanently create an imbalance between the states and federal
government.
2.Supreme Court deference to Congress and the executive compromises American
protection of civil rights, political minority groups and aliens.[112]
Further information: Separation of powers under the United States
Constitution
Subsequent Courts
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Chase
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Taft
Court
Scope of judicial review expanded
Salmon P. Chase [o]
Union, Reconstruction
William Howard Taft [p]
commerce, incorporation
Earl Warren [q]
due process, civil rights
William Rehnquist [r]
federalism, privacy
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 Arizona, New
Mexico, 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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren
Court
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the
Rehnquist Court
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
Main article: American civil 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.[113]
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".[113] 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".[114]
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.[115][116]
Worldwide influence
José Rizal
Sun Yat-sen
Main article: United States Constitution and 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.[117]
It informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War,[s] his
contemporary and ally Benito Juárez of Mexico,[t] and the second
generation of 19th century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of
the Philippines[u] and Sun Yat-sen of China.[v] 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.[123][124]
Criticisms
Further information: Criticism of the United States Constitution
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.
[125][126][127] 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.[128] 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.[129]
See also
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story (three
volumes)
Congressional power of enforcement
Constitution Day (United States)
History of democracy
List of national constitutions (world countries)
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
List of sources of law in the United States
National Constitution Center
Pocket Constitution
State constitution (United States)
Second Constitutional Convention of the United States
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and
Interpretation
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)
Notes
a.Jump up ^ 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.
b.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
c.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
d.Jump up ^ 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.
e.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
f.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
g.Jump up ^ 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.
h.Jump up ^ 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[100]
i.Jump up ^ In this, John Marshall leaned on the argument of Hamilton in
Federalist No. 78.
j.Jump up ^ 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.
k.Jump up ^ 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."[103]
l.Jump up ^ 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.
m.Jump up ^ "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.
n.Jump up ^ Louis Brandeis concurring opinion, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, 1936.
o.Jump up ^ 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
p.Jump up ^ 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
q.Jump up ^ 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
r.Jump up ^ The Rehnquist Court, 1986–2005.
s.Jump up ^ "Secession was indeed unconstitutional ... military resistance
to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.[118] "
the primary purpose of the Constitution was ... to create 'a more perfect
union' ... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.[119]
t.Jump up ^ Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican
democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.[120]
u.Jump up ^ 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.[121]
v.Jump up ^ 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.[122]
References
Footnotes
1.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 35
2.Jump up ^ 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). U.S. Government Printing
Office. p. 25 n.2. ISBN 9780160632686.
3.^ Jump up to: a b "Constitution Day". Senate.gov. United States Senate.
Retrieved September 10, 2016.
4.Jump up ^ 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.
5.Jump up ^ Lloyd, Gordon. "Introduction to the Bill of Rights".
TeachingAmericanHistory.org. The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.
Retrieved September 21, 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "America's Founding Documents". October 30, 2015.
7.Jump up ^ "Differences between Parchment, Vellum and Paper". August 15,
2016.
8.Jump up ^ McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1936). "A constitutional History of the
United States". New York, London: D. Appleton-Century Company. pp. 83–90.
Retrieved August 27, 2014.
9.Jump up ^ Morris, Richard B. (December 28, 1976). Presidential Address (
Speech). American Historical Association. Retrieved June 8, 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Fritz, Christian G. (2008). American Sovereigns: The People and
America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War. New York:
Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3; noting that "
Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood" the Articles of
Confederation "to be the first federal Constitution".
11.Jump up ^ Jensen, Merrill (1950). The New Nation: A History of the United
States During the Confederation, 1781–1789. Boston: Northeastern
University Press. pp. 177–233. ISBN 978-0-930350-14-7.
12.Jump up ^ Wood, Gordon S. (1972). The Creation of the American Republic,
1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 359. ISBN
978-0-807-84723-7.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maier 2010, pp. 11–13
14.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 12-13, 19.
15.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 15-16.
16.Jump up ^ Bowen 2010, pp. 129-130.
17.Jump up ^ Bowen 2010, p. 31.
18.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 13.
19.Jump up ^ Wood 1998, pp. 356-367, 359.
20.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.
21.Jump up ^ "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".
22.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 21
23.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 27
24.^ Jump up to: a b "America's Founding Fathers-Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention". The U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
25.Jump up ^ Finn, John E. (2006). Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights
Part I: Lecture 4: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation. The Teaching
Company. pp. 52–t4. "The most obvious mechanism for change is not the
freedom to amend the Constitution, not the authority to engage in a new
Constitutional revolution, but to build play into the joints, to build
ambiguity and flexibility into the very words of the Constitution so that
they might mean different things to different generations."
26.Jump up ^ "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.
27.Jump up ^ "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.
28.^ Jump up to: a b "Committee Assignments Chart and Commentary". Ashland,
Ohio: TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
29.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates July 16". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c "Committees at the Constitutional Convention". U.S.
Constitution Online. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
31.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates August 6". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
32.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates September 12". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
33.Jump up ^ Vile, John R. (2005). The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A
Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding (Volume 1: A-M). ABC-CLIO.
p. 705. ISBN 1-85109-669-8. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
34.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates September 15". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
35.Jump up ^ 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. LCCN 87001353.
CMH Pub 71-25.
36.Jump up ^ "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.
37.Jump up ^ "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.
38.Jump up ^ National Archives and Records Administration. "National
Archives Article on the Bill of Rights". Retrieved December 16, 2007.
39.Jump up ^ 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]
40.Jump up ^ 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)).
41.Jump up ^ Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
42.^ Jump up to: a b 17. U.S. at 421
43.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h O'Connor 2010.
44.Jump up ^ FindLaw for legal professionals, 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 January 16, 2013, at the Wayback
Machine.
45.Jump up ^ England, Trent & Spalding, Matthew. "Essays on Article V:
Amendments". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
46.Jump up ^ "Proposed Amendments". Constitution Day Observance Events.
Clayton State University.
47.Jump up ^ Lutz, Donald (1994). "Toward a Theory of Constitutional
Amendment". The American Political Science Review.
48.^ Jump up to: a b "The Constitutional Amendment Process". National
Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
49.Jump up ^ Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the
American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 312.
50.Jump up ^ 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.
51.^ Jump up to: a b Spaulding, Matthew. "Attestation Clause". The Heritage
Foundation. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
52.Jump up ^ Neale, Thomas H. "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment:
Contemporary Ratification Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved July 27, 2014.
53.Jump up ^ 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.
54.Jump up ^ Fletcher v. Haas, 11-10644-DPW (D. Mass. March 30, 2012).
55.Jump up ^ Pierce, John (April 2, 2012). "Permanent Resident Aliens Have
Second Amendment Rights Too". Monachus Lex.[self-published source]
56.Jump up ^ Constitutional Law. Casenotes.[full citation needed]
57.Jump up ^ Jilson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and
Institutional Change.[full citation needed]
58.Jump up ^ Shaman, Jeffrey. "After Heller: What Now for the Second
Amendment". Santa Clara Law Review. Retrieved January 30, 2014.[full
citation needed]
59.Jump up ^ "US Senate Annotated Constitution". Retrieved January 30, 2014.
60.Jump up ^ 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.
61.Jump up ^ Epstein, Lee & Walk, Thomas G. (2012). Constitutional Law for a
Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice (8th ed.). CQ Press. pp.
395–396. ISBN 978-1-4522-2674-3.
62.Jump up ^ Moncure 1990.
63.Jump up ^ 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.
64.Jump up ^ 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.
65.Jump up ^ 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.
66.Jump up ^ 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.
67.Jump up ^ 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.
68.Jump up ^ 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.
69.Jump up ^ 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.
70.Jump up ^ 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.
71.Jump up ^ "Annotation 1: Eleventh Amendment, State Immunity". FindLaw.
Retrieved May 4, 2013.
72.Jump up ^ 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.
73.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVIII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
75.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
76.Jump up ^ "The Emancipation Proclamation". National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
77.Jump up ^ 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.
78.Jump up ^ 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.
79.Jump up ^ 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.
80.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XIX". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
81.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXIII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
82.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXIV". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
83.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXVI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
84.Jump up ^ 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.
85.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
86.Jump up ^ "CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Twentieth Amendment".
87.Jump up ^ See 34 Library of Cong., Journals of the Continental Congress,
1774–1789, at 523 (Roscoe R. Hill ed., 1937).
88.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XX". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
89.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
90.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXV". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXVII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
92.Jump up ^ "Capitol Questions". C-SPAN. Archived from the original on May
9, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
93.Jump up ^ Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the
American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 609.
94.Jump up ^ Kilpatrick, James J., ed. (1961). The Constitution of the
United States and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional
Government. pp. 68–69.
95.Jump up ^ Griffin, Stephen M. (1998). American Constitutionalism: From
Theory to Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 89. ISBN 9780691002408.
96.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 134.
97.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 136.
98.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 137-138.
99.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 138.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 142.
101.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 140.
102.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 140-141.
103.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 141.
104.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 141-142.
105.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 145.
106.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 148-149.
107.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 149.
108.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 154.
109.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 150.
110.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 151.
111.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 150-151.
112.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 153.
113.^ Jump up to: a b Wood, Gordon S., (August 14, 1997). "Dusting off the
Declaration". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
114.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 115.
115.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 118.
116.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 119.
117.Jump up ^ Billias 2009, xi–xv.
118.Jump up ^ Farber 2003, p. 3.
119.Jump up ^ Farber 2003, p. 198.
120.Jump up ^ Stacy 2003, p. 436.
121.Jump up ^ Malcolm 1920, p. 109.
122.Jump up ^ Qing Yu 1988, p. 193.
123.Jump up ^ "The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution".
Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School of Government Shorenstein
Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April
23, 2015.
124.Jump up ^ Law, David S.; Versteeg, Mila (2012). "The Declining Influence
of the United States Constitution". New York University Law Review. 87 (3):
762–858.
125.Jump up ^ "Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage".
Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Retrieved April
21, 2015.
126.Jump up ^ "U.S. Voting Rights". Infoplease. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
127.Jump up ^ "Voting in Early America". Colonial Williamsburg. Spring 2007.
Retrieved April 21, 2015.
128.Jump up ^ Foner, Eric. "The Reconstruction Amendments: Official
Documents as Social History". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American
History. Retrieved December 5, 2012. (subscription required (help)).
129.Jump up ^ "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. ISBN 978-0-275-34060-5.
Billias, George (2009). American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World,
1776-1989: A Global Perspective. New York: New York University Press. ISBN
978-0-8147-9107-3.
Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia: The
Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York:
Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-10261-2.
Farber, Daniel (2003). Lincoln's Constitution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-23793-0.
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. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.
Malcolm, George A. (1920). "Constitutional History of the Philippines".
American Bar Association Journal. 6.
Moncure, Thomas M., Jr. (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. The United States Constitution: Its Birth, Growth, and
Influence in Asia. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-
201-3.
Stacy, Lee, ed. (2003). Mexico and the United States. vol. 2. London:
Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-7614-7402-9.
Wood, Gordon (1998). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-4723-7.
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. ISBN
0-940450-64-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.
JSTOR 3053081.
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.
).[full citation needed]
United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Constitution
Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created
September 17, 1787
Ratified
June 21, 1788
Date effective
March 4, 1789; 227 years ago
Location
National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Author(s)
Philadelphia Convention
Signatories
39 of the 55 delegates
Purpose
To replace the Articles of Confederation (1777)
This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
Preamble
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII ·
VIII ·
IX ·
X
XI ·
XII ·
XIII ·
XIV ·
XV ·
XVI ·
XVII ·
XVIII ·
XIX ·
XX ·
XXI ·
XXII ·
XXIII ·
XXIV ·
XXV ·
XXVI ·
XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment ·
Titles of Nobility ·
Corwin ·
Child Labor ·
Equal Rights ·
D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline
Convention ·
Signing
Federalism ·
Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII ·
Amendments I–X
Amendments XI–XXVII ·
Unratified Amendments
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal ·
U.S. Government portal ·
Law portal ·
Wikipedia book
v ·
t ·
e
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Seal of the United States Congress.svg
United States House of Representatives 2017.svg115th United States Senate.
svg
Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
Seal of the United States Senate.svg
Executive[show]
Seal of the President of the United States.svg
Judiciary[show]
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]
Other countries ·
Atlas
v ·
t ·
e
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of
America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles,
delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles
entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal
government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of
the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the
judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles
Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights
and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship
to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure
subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-
seven times[2] to meet the changing needs of a nation now profoundly
different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.[3]
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.[4][5] 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 end of
the document. All four pages[6] of the original U.S. Constitution are
written on parchment.[7]
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."[3]
The first constitution of its kind, 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.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical context 1.1 First government
1.2 Articles of Confederation
2 1787 Drafting
3 1788 Ratification
4 Influences
5 Original frame 5.1 Preamble
5.2 Article One
5.3 Article Two
5.4 Article Three
5.5 Article Four
5.6 Article Five
5.7 Article Six
5.8 Article Seven
5.9 Closing endorsement
6 Ratified amendments 6.1 Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 3)
6.2 Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
6.3 Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 10)
6.4 Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 21)
6.5 Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26)
6.6 Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27)
7 Unratified amendments 7.1 Still pending
7.2 No longer pending
8 Judicial review 8.1 Scope and theory
8.2 Establishment 8.2.1 Self-restraint
8.2.2 Separation of powers
8.3 Subsequent Courts
9 Civic religion
10 Worldwide influence
11 Criticisms
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References 14.1 Footnotes
14.2 Works cited
15 Further reading
16 External links 16.1 U.S. government sources
16.2 Non-governmental sources
Historical context
See also: History of the United States Constitution
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.[8] 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.[9]
Articles of Confederation
Main article: Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution
of the United States.[10] 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. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central
government's power was quite limited. 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.[11]
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",[12] the chief problem with the new government
under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington,
"no money".[13] The Continental Congress could print money; but, by 1786,
the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a
useless object or person was ... not worth a Continental, referring to the
Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[
13] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing, as did New
Jersey in 1785. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national
debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[13] No interest was paid on debt
owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on
outstanding debts as their dates came due.[13]
Internationally, the Articles of Confederation did little to enhance the
United States' ability to defend its sovereignty. Most of the troops in the
625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening –
British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been
paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[14] 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 extortionate demands. If any extant or new military
crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to
finance a response.[13]
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 individual states proceeded
blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted
Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the
protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[13]
Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated
directly with foreign authorities, ra | a*****1
发帖数: 3817 | 4 自己去看美国宪法
United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Constitution
Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created
September 17, 1787
Ratified
June 21, 1788
Date effective
March 4, 1789; 227 years ago
Location
National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Author(s)
Philadelphia Convention
Signatories
39 of the 55 delegates
Purpose
To replace the Articles of Confederation (1777)
This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
Preamble
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII ·
VIII ·
IX ·
X
XI ·
XII ·
XIII ·
XIV ·
XV ·
XVI ·
XVII ·
XVIII ·
XIX ·
XX ·
XXI ·
XXII ·
XXIII ·
XXIV ·
XXV ·
XXVI ·
XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment ·
Titles of Nobility ·
Corwin ·
Child Labor ·
Equal Rights ·
D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline
Convention ·
Signing
Federalism ·
Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII ·
Amendments I–X
Amendments XI–XXVII ·
Unratified Amendments
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal ·
U.S. Government portal ·
Law portal ·
Wikipedia book
v ·
t ·
e
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Seal of the United States Congress.svg
United States House of Representatives 2017.svg115th United States Senate.
svg
Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
Seal of the United States Senate.svg
Executive[show]
Seal of the President of the United States.svg
Judiciary[show]
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]
Other countries ·
Atlas
v ·
t ·
e
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of
America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles,
delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles
entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal
government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of
the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the
judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles
Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights
and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship
to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure
subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-
seven times[2] to meet the changing needs of a nation now profoundly
different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.[3]
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.[4][5] 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 end of
the document. All four pages[6] of the original U.S. Constitution are
written on parchment.[7]
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."[3]
The first constitution of its kind, 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.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical context 1.1 First government
1.2 Articles of Confederation
2 1787 Drafting
3 1788 Ratification
4 Influences
5 Original frame 5.1 Preamble
5.2 Article One
5.3 Article Two
5.4 Article Three
5.5 Article Four
5.6 Article Five
5.7 Article Six
5.8 Article Seven
5.9 Closing endorsement
6 Ratified amendments 6.1 Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 3)
6.2 Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
6.3 Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 10)
6.4 Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 21)
6.5 Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26)
6.6 Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27)
7 Unratified amendments 7.1 Still pending
7.2 No longer pending
8 Judicial review 8.1 Scope and theory
8.2 Establishment 8.2.1 Self-restraint
8.2.2 Separation of powers
8.3 Subsequent Courts
9 Civic religion
10 Worldwide influence
11 Criticisms
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References 14.1 Footnotes
14.2 Works cited
15 Further reading
16 External links 16.1 U.S. government sources
16.2 Non-governmental sources
Historical context
See also: History of the United States Constitution
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.[8] 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.[9]
Articles of Confederation
Main article: Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution
of the United States.[10] 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. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central
government's power was quite limited. 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.[11]
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",[12] the chief problem with the new government
under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington,
"no money".[13] The Continental Congress could print money; but, by 1786,
the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a
useless object or person was ... not worth a Continental, referring to the
Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[
13] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing, as did New
Jersey in 1785. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national
debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[13] No interest was paid on debt
owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on
outstanding debts as their dates came due.[13]
Internationally, the Articles of Confederation did little to enhance the
United States' ability to defend its sovereignty. Most of the troops in the
625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening –
British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been
paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[14] 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 extortionate demands. If any extant or new military
crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to
finance a response.[13]
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 individual states proceeded
blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted
Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the
protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[13]
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.
During Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts, Congress could provide no money to
support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for
its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise
funds from Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[15] During the next
Convention, 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
.[16] 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 white settlers in
Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah (then-capital of Georgia) had been
fortified, and the state of Georgia was under martial law.[17]
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.[18] The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to
govern".[19] 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.[20]
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of
state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government.[21] 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.[22]
1787 Drafting
Main article: Constitutional Convention (United States)
Signing the Constitution, September 17, 1787
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.[23] 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.[24] 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. Their depth of knowledge and experience in self-
government was remarkable. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams
in London, "It really is an assembly of demigods." According to one view,
the Framers embraced the federal ambiguities in the constitutional text
allowing for compromise and cooperation about broad concepts rather than
dictating specific policies for the future.[25]
Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition, and any one delegate
could be found using both or a mixture depending on the subject under
discussion: foreign affairs, the economy, national government, or federal
relationships among the states. 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.[26]
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.[27]
On May 31, the Convention devolved into a "Committee of the Whole" to
consider the fifteen propositions of the Virginia Plan in their numerical
order. These discussions continued until June 13, when 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[28] 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 legislatures generally voting for their respective
senators), and that all money bills would originate in the House.[29]
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.[30] 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.[31]
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.[28][30] 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.[30] 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.[24] The
committee also presented a proposed letter to accompany the constitution
when delivered to Congress.[32]
The final document, engrossed by Jacob Shallus,[33] 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".[34]
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.[35]
1788 Ratification
Transmitted to the United States in Congress Assembled then sitting in New
York City, the new Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress
recommending the ratification process outlined in the Constitution. Each
state legislature was to call elections for a "Federal Convention" to ratify
the new Constitution. They expanded the franchise beyond the Constitutional
requirement to more nearly embrace "the people". Eleven ratified in 1787 or
1788, and all thirteen had done so by 1790. The Congress of the
Confederation certified eleven states to begin the new government, and
called the states to hold elections to begin operation. It then dissolved
itself on March 4, 1789, the day the first session of the Congress of the
United States began. George Washington was inaugurated as President two
months later.
Territorial extent of the United States, 1790
It was within the power of the old Congress of the Confederation to expedite
or block the ratification of the new Constitution. The document that the
Philadelphia Convention presented was technically only a revision of the
Articles of Confederation. But the last article of the new instrument
provided that when ratified by conventions in nine states (or two-thirds at
the time), it should go into effect among the States so acting.
Then followed an arduous process of ratification of the Constitution by
specially constituted conventions. The need for only nine states' approval
was a controversial decision at the time, since 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",[36] 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.
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals –
passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into
operation with eleven states.[37] North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified
by May 1790.
Influences
Further information: History of the United States Constitution
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (June 2012) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The
specific problem is: not encyclopedic Please help improve this section if
you can. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message
)
Enlightenment and Rule of law
John Locke by Herman Verelst.png
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.
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 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.[38] 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.[39] This Frame of
Government consisted of a preamble, seven articles and a signed closing
endorsement.
Preamble
"We the People" in an original edition
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,[40] 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".[41]
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",[42] 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."[42]
Article Two
Article Two describes the office of the President of the United States. 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 describes the office, qualifications and duties of the President
of the United States and the Vice President. It 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[43] 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.[a] 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.[43]
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.[43]
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. Also
required is of broad enough concern in the Court's jurisdiction that a lower
court, either federal or state, does not geographically cover all the
existing cases before law. Courts following these guidelines exercise
judicial restraint. Those making an exception are said to be judicial
activist.[b]
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,[44] 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.[43]
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.[c] 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
.[d] 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.[e]
Section 3 bars Congress from changing or modifying Federal law on treason by
simple majority statute. Treason is also defined in this section. It's not
enough merely to think a treasonous thought, there must be 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 less subversive crimes and punishments such
as conspiracy.[f]
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, e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of
crimes within Michigan.
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:[45]
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.[46] State ratifying conventions were used only
once, for the Twenty-first Amendment.[47]
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.[48]
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 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.[49] 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.[50]
Closing endorsement
Closing endorsement section of the United States Constitution
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.[51]
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.[51]
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
United States Bill of Rights
Currently housed in the National Archives.
See also: List of amendments to the United States Constitution
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
.[52] 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.[48]
Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 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 if the ideas are unpopular. It also guarantees
an individual's right to physically gather with a group of people to picket
or protest; 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.[53]
The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals[54][55] to
keep and bear arms.[56][57][58][59] 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 similar devices.[60][61]
Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates,
the widespread desire for such an 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?"[62]
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 widespread desire for such an 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.[63]
Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 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.[64]
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.[65]
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.[66]
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.[67]
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.[68]
Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 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. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against
the addition of a Bill of Rights was that, because it was impossible to list
every fundamental right, it would be dangerous to list just some of them,
for fear of suggesting that the list was explicit and exhaustive, thus
enlarging the power of the federal government by implication. The Anti-
Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights, and consequently 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 keep personal
matters private and to make important decisions about one's health care or
body.[69]
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 that occurs within a state's own borders, and
local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to
the states or the people.[70]
Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 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.[71][72]
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 a 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.[73]
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.[74]
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.[75]
Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 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.[76] 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.[77]
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. The mode of
apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause
3 has been superseded by that of this amendment, which also overturned the
Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[78]
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.[79]
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.[80]
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. However, while its residents had all the
responsibilities of citizenship, such as paying federal taxes, and could be
drafted to serve in the military, citizens in thirteen states with lower
populations had more voting rights than District residents.[81]
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, regardless of one's ability to pay.[82]
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
, which held that Congress may set requirements for voting in federal
elections, but not for state or local elections. The measure, which
overturns the Mitchell decision, is another in a line of constitutional
changes that expanded the right to vote to more citizens.[83]
Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 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. The electoral process delineated by Article II,
Section 1, Clause 3 has been superseded by that of this amendment, which
also extends the eligibility requirements to become President to the Vice
President.[84]
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.[85]
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.[86] Originally, the Constitution provided that the
annual meeting was to be on the first Monday in December unless otherwise
provided by law. The Articles Congress had determined, as a transitional
measure to the new constitution, that the date for "commencing proceedings"
under the U.S. Constitution would be March 4, 1789.[87] This became the date
on which new federal officials took office in subsequent years. 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. However, as transportation and communications improved, this
became an unnecessarily long delay. 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.[88]
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.[89]
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
plan of succession has frequently been necessary. Eight presidents have died
in office and one resigned from office mid-term. Similarly, seven vice
presidents have died in office and two resigned mid-term. This has meant
that for nearly 20% of U.S. history, there has been no Vice-President in
office who can assume the Presidency.[90]
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.[91]
Unratified amendments
Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200
amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[92] 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.[93] Three states
ratified the amendment in the early 1860s, but none have since. To become
part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional thirty-five
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.[94] 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.[95]
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, thus it failed to be adopted.
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
See also: Judicial review in the United States, Judicial review, and Appeal
§ Appellate 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".[g]
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.[96]
Early Court roots in the founding
John Jay, 1789–1795
New York co-author
The Federalist Papers
John Marshall, 1801–1835
Fauquier County delegate
Virginia Ratification Convention
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.[97]
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.[98]
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".[99][h]
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.[99]
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. The law afforded Marbury a remedy at court. Then
Marshall, writing the opinion for the majority, announced his discovered
conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III.[i]
[101][j] 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".[102]
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
between them.
"This argument has been ratified by time and by practice..."[k][l] "Marshall
The Supreme Court did not declare another Act of Congress unconstitutional
until the disastrous 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.[104]
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.[100]
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.[105]
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.[m] 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.[105]
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". Under the Court's
practice, there are cases 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."[106]
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.[107] 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.[108]
Justice Brandeis summarized four general guidelines that the Supreme Court
uses to avoid constitutional decisions relating to Congress:[n] 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. [107]
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.[109] 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".[110]
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."[111]
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.
1.Its inaction is said to allow "a flood of legislative appropriations"
which permanently create an imbalance between the states and federal
government.
2.Supreme Court deference to Congress and the executive compromises American
protection of civil rights, political minority groups and aliens.[112]
Further information: Separation of powers under the United States
Constitution
Subsequent Courts
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Chase
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Taft
Court
Scope of judicial review expanded
Salmon P. Chase [o]
Union, Reconstruction
William Howard Taft [p]
commerce, incorporation
Earl Warren [q]
due process, civil rights
William Rehnquist [r]
federalism, privacy
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 Arizona, New
Mexico, 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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren
Court
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.
Further information: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the
Rehnquist Court
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
Main article: American civil 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.[113]
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".[113] 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".[114]
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.[115][116]
Worldwide influence
José Rizal
Sun Yat-sen
Main article: United States Constitution and 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.[117]
It informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War,[s] his
contemporary and ally Benito Juárez of Mexico,[t] and the second
generation of 19th century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of
the Philippines[u] and Sun Yat-sen of China.[v] 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.[123][124]
Criticisms
Further information: Criticism of the United States Constitution
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.
[125][126][127] 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.[128] 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.[129]
See also
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story (three
volumes)
Congressional power of enforcement
Constitution Day (United States)
History of democracy
List of national constitutions (world countries)
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
List of sources of law in the United States
National Constitution Center
Pocket Constitution
State constitution (United States)
Second Constitutional Convention of the United States
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and
Interpretation
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)
Notes
a.Jump up ^ 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.
b.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
c.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
d.Jump up ^ 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.
e.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
f.Jump up ^ 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.[43]
g.Jump up ^ 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.
h.Jump up ^ 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[100]
i.Jump up ^ In this, John Marshall leaned on the argument of Hamilton in
Federalist No. 78.
j.Jump up ^ 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.
k.Jump up ^ 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."[103]
l.Jump up ^ 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.
m.Jump up ^ "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.
n.Jump up ^ Louis Brandeis concurring opinion, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, 1936.
o.Jump up ^ 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
p.Jump up ^ 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
q.Jump up ^ 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
r.Jump up ^ The Rehnquist Court, 1986–2005.
s.Jump up ^ "Secession was indeed unconstitutional ... military resistance
to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.[118] "
the primary purpose of the Constitution was ... to create 'a more perfect
union' ... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.[119]
t.Jump up ^ Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican
democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.[120]
u.Jump up ^ 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.[121]
v.Jump up ^ 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.[122]
References
Footnotes
1.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 35
2.Jump up ^ 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). U.S. Government Printing
Office. p. 25 n.2. ISBN 9780160632686.
3.^ Jump up to: a b "Constitution Day". Senate.gov. United States Senate.
Retrieved September 10, 2016.
4.Jump up ^ 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.
5.Jump up ^ Lloyd, Gordon. "Introduction to the Bill of Rights".
TeachingAmericanHistory.org. The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.
Retrieved September 21, 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "America's Founding Documents". October 30, 2015.
7.Jump up ^ "Differences between Parchment, Vellum and Paper". August 15,
2016.
8.Jump up ^ McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1936). "A constitutional History of the
United States". New York, London: D. Appleton-Century Company. pp. 83–90.
Retrieved August 27, 2014.
9.Jump up ^ Morris, Richard B. (December 28, 1976). Presidential Address (
Speech). American Historical Association. Retrieved June 8, 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Fritz, Christian G. (2008). American Sovereigns: The People and
America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War. New York:
Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3; noting that "
Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood" the Articles of
Confederation "to be the first federal Constitution".
11.Jump up ^ Jensen, Merrill (1950). The New Nation: A History of the United
States During the Confederation, 1781–1789. Boston: Northeastern
University Press. pp. 177–233. ISBN 978-0-930350-14-7.
12.Jump up ^ Wood, Gordon S. (1972). The Creation of the American Republic,
1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 359. ISBN
978-0-807-84723-7.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maier 2010, pp. 11–13
14.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 12-13, 19.
15.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 15-16.
16.Jump up ^ Bowen 2010, pp. 129-130.
17.Jump up ^ Bowen 2010, p. 31.
18.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 13.
19.Jump up ^ Wood 1998, pp. 356-367, 359.
20.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.
21.Jump up ^ "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".
22.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 21
23.Jump up ^ Maier 2010, p. 27
24.^ Jump up to: a b "America's Founding Fathers-Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention". The U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
25.Jump up ^ Finn, John E. (2006). Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights
Part I: Lecture 4: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation. The Teaching
Company. pp. 52–t4. "The most obvious mechanism for change is not the
freedom to amend the Constitution, not the authority to engage in a new
Constitutional revolution, but to build play into the joints, to build
ambiguity and flexibility into the very words of the Constitution so that
they might mean different things to different generations."
26.Jump up ^ "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.
27.Jump up ^ "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.
28.^ Jump up to: a b "Committee Assignments Chart and Commentary". Ashland,
Ohio: TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
29.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates July 16". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c "Committees at the Constitutional Convention". U.S.
Constitution Online. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
31.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates August 6". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
32.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates September 12". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
33.Jump up ^ Vile, John R. (2005). The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A
Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding (Volume 1: A-M). ABC-CLIO.
p. 705. ISBN 1-85109-669-8. Retrieved October 21, 2015.
34.Jump up ^ "Madison Debates September 15". The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
35.Jump up ^ 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. LCCN 87001353.
CMH Pub 71-25.
36.Jump up ^ "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.
37.Jump up ^ "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.
38.Jump up ^ National Archives and Records Administration. "National
Archives Article on the Bill of Rights". Retrieved December 16, 2007.
39.Jump up ^ 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]
40.Jump up ^ 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)).
41.Jump up ^ Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
42.^ Jump up to: a b 17. U.S. at 421
43.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h O'Connor 2010.
44.Jump up ^ FindLaw for legal professionals, 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 January 16, 2013, at the Wayback
Machine.
45.Jump up ^ England, Trent & Spalding, Matthew. "Essays on Article V:
Amendments". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
46.Jump up ^ "Proposed Amendments". Constitution Day Observance Events.
Clayton State University.
47.Jump up ^ Lutz, Donald (1994). "Toward a Theory of Constitutional
Amendment". The American Political Science Review.
48.^ Jump up to: a b "The Constitutional Amendment Process". National
Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
49.Jump up ^ Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the
American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 312.
50.Jump up ^ 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.
51.^ Jump up to: a b Spaulding, Matthew. "Attestation Clause". The Heritage
Foundation. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
52.Jump up ^ Neale, Thomas H. "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment:
Contemporary Ratification Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved July 27, 2014.
53.Jump up ^ 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.
54.Jump up ^ Fletcher v. Haas, 11-10644-DPW (D. Mass. March 30, 2012).
55.Jump up ^ Pierce, John (April 2, 2012). "Permanent Resident Aliens Have
Second Amendment Rights Too". Monachus Lex.[self-published source]
56.Jump up ^ Constitutional Law. Casenotes.[full citation needed]
57.Jump up ^ Jilson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and
Institutional Change.[full citation needed]
58.Jump up ^ Shaman, Jeffrey. "After Heller: What Now for the Second
Amendment". Santa Clara Law Review. Retrieved January 30, 2014.[full
citation needed]
59.Jump up ^ "US Senate Annotated Constitution". Retrieved January 30, 2014.
60.Jump up ^ 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.
61.Jump up ^ Epstein, Lee & Walk, Thomas G. (2012). Constitutional Law for a
Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice (8th ed.). CQ Press. pp.
395–396. ISBN 978-1-4522-2674-3.
62.Jump up ^ Moncure 1990.
63.Jump up ^ 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.
64.Jump up ^ 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.
65.Jump up ^ 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.
66.Jump up ^ 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.
67.Jump up ^ 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.
68.Jump up ^ 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.
69.Jump up ^ 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.
70.Jump up ^ 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.
71.Jump up ^ "Annotation 1: Eleventh Amendment, State Immunity". FindLaw.
Retrieved May 4, 2013.
72.Jump up ^ 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.
73.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVIII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
75.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
76.Jump up ^ "The Emancipation Proclamation". National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
77.Jump up ^ 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.
78.Jump up ^ 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.
79.Jump up ^ 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.
80.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XIX". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
81.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXIII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
82.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXIV". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
83.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXVI". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
84.Jump up ^ 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.
85.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XVII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
86.Jump up ^ "CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Twentieth Amendment".
87.Jump up ^ See 34 Library of Cong., Journals of the Continental Congress,
1774–1789, at 523 (Roscoe R. Hill ed., 1937).
88.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XX". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
89.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
90.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXV". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Monk, Linda. "Amendment XXVII". www.annenbergclassroom.org.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
92.Jump up ^ "Capitol Questions". C-SPAN. Archived from the original on May
9, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
93.Jump up ^ Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the
American People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 609.
94.Jump up ^ Kilpatrick, James J., ed. (1961). The Constitution of the
United States and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional
Government. pp. 68–69.
95.Jump up ^ Griffin, Stephen M. (1998). American Constitutionalism: From
Theory to Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 89. ISBN 9780691002408.
96.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 134.
97.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 136.
98.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 137-138.
99.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 138.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 142.
101.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 140.
102.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 140-141.
103.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 141.
104.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 141-142.
105.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 145.
106.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 148-149.
107.^ Jump up to: a b Pritchett 1959, p. 149.
108.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 154.
109.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 150.
110.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 151.
111.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 150-151.
112.Jump up ^ Pritchett 1959, p. 153.
113.^ Jump up to: a b Wood, Gordon S., (August 14, 1997). "Dusting off the
Declaration". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
114.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 115.
115.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 118.
116.Jump up ^ Levinson 1987, p. 119.
117.Jump up ^ Billias 2009, xi–xv.
118.Jump up ^ Farber 2003, p. 3.
119.Jump up ^ Farber 2003, p. 198.
120.Jump up ^ Stacy 2003, p. 436.
121.Jump up ^ Malcolm 1920, p. 109.
122.Jump up ^ Qing Yu 1988, p. 193.
123.Jump up ^ "The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution".
Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School of Government Shorenstein
Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April
23, 2015.
124.Jump up ^ Law, David S.; Versteeg, Mila (2012). "The Declining Influence
of the United States Constitution". New York University Law Review. 87 (3):
762–858.
125.Jump up ^ "Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage".
Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Retrieved April
21, 2015.
126.Jump up ^ "U.S. Voting Rights". Infoplease. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
127.Jump up ^ "Voting in Early America". Colonial Williamsburg. Spring 2007.
Retrieved April 21, 2015.
128.Jump up ^ Foner, Eric. "The Reconstruction Amendments: Official
Documents as Social History". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American
History. Retrieved December 5, 2012. (subscription required (help)).
129.Jump up ^ "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. ISBN 978-0-275-34060-5.
Billias, George (2009). American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World,
1776-1989: A Global Perspective. New York: New York University Press. ISBN
978-0-8147-9107-3.
Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia: The
Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York:
Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-10261-2.
Farber, Daniel (2003). Lincoln's Constitution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-23793-0.
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. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.
Malcolm, George A. (1920). "Constitutional History of the Philippines".
American Bar Association Journal. 6.
Moncure, Thomas M., Jr. (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. The United States Constitution: Its Birth, Growth, and
Influence in Asia. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-
201-3.
Stacy, Lee, ed. (2003). Mexico and the United States. vol. 2. London:
Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-7614-7402-9.
Wood, Gordon (1998). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-4723-7.
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. ISBN
0-940450-64-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.
JSTOR 3053081.
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.
).[full citation needed]
United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Constitution
Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created
September 17, 1787
Ratified
June 21, 1788
Date effective
March 4, 1789; 227 years ago
Location
National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Author(s)
Philadelphia Convention
Signatories
39 of the 55 delegates
Purpose
To replace the Articles of Confederation (1777)
This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
Preamble
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ·
II ·
III ·
IV ·
V ·
VI ·
VII ·
VIII ·
IX ·
X
XI ·
XII ·
XIII ·
XIV ·
XV ·
XVI ·
XVII ·
XVIII ·
XIX ·
XX ·
XXI ·
XXII ·
XXIII ·
XXIV ·
XXV ·
XXVI ·
XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment ·
Titles of Nobility ·
Corwin ·
Child Labor ·
Equal Rights ·
D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline
Convention ·
Signing
Federalism ·
Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII ·
Amendments I–X
Amendments XI–XXVII ·
Unratified Amendments
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal ·
U.S. Government portal ·
Law portal ·
Wikipedia book
v ·
t ·
e
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America
Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg
Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Seal of the United States Congress.svg
United States House of Representatives 2017.svg115th United States Senate.
svg
Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
Seal of the United States Senate.svg
Executive[show]
Seal of the President of the United States.svg
Judiciary[show]
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]
Other countries ·
Atlas
v ·
t ·
e
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of
America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles,
delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles
entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal
government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of
the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the
judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles
Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights
and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship
to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure
subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-
seven times[2] to meet the changing needs of a nation now profoundly
different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.[3]
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.[4][5] 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 end of
the document. All four pages[6] of the original U.S. Constitution are
written on parchment.[7]
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."[3]
The first constitution of its kind, 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.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical context 1.1 First government
1.2 Articles of Confederation
2 1787 Drafting
3 1788 Ratification
4 Influences
5 Original frame 5.1 Preamble
5.2 Article One
5.3 Article Two
5.4 Article Three
5.5 Article Four
5.6 Article Five
5.7 Article Six
5.8 Article Seven
5.9 Closing endorsement
6 Ratified amendments 6.1 Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, 3)
6.2 Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
6.3 Unenumerated rights and reserved powers (Amendments 9, 10)
6.4 Governmental authority (Amendments 11, 16, 18, 21)
6.5 Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26)
6.6 Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27)
7 Unratified amendments 7.1 Still pending
7.2 No longer pending
8 Judicial review 8.1 Scope and theory
8.2 Establishment 8.2.1 Self-restraint
8.2.2 Separation of powers
8.3 Subsequent Courts
9 Civic religion
10 Worldwide influence
11 Criticisms
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References 14.1 Footnotes
14.2 Works cited
15 Further reading
16 External links 16.1 U.S. government sources
16.2 Non-governmental sources
Historical context
See also: History of the United States Constitution
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.[8] 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.[9]
Articles of Confederation
Main article: Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution
of the United States.[10] 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. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central
government's power was quite limited. 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.[11]
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",[12] the chief problem with the new government
under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington,
"no money".[13] The Continental Congress could print money; but, by 1786,
the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a
useless object or person was ... not worth a Continental, referring to the
Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[
13] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing, as did New
Jersey in 1785. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national
debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[13] No interest was paid on debt
owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on
outstanding debts as their dates came due.[13]
Internationally, the Articles of Confederation did little to enhance the
United States' ability to defend its sovereignty. Most of the troops in the
625-man United States Army were deployed facing – but not threatening –
British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been
paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[14] 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 extortionate demands. If any extant or new military
crisis required action, the Congress had no credit or taxing power to
finance a response.[13]
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 individual states proceeded
blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted
Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the
protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[13]
Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated
directly with foreign authorities, ra |
|
