How and why did the Framers - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

How and why did the Framers devise an amendment process?

The Framers intended the Constitution to be, and to remain, a fundamental framework of lawThey did not want the Constitution to become confused with ordinary laws and regulations or to be changed in response to transient whimsHowever, they also recognized that American society and conditions would change over time in ways they could not predict in 1787The Constitution that they proposed, George Mason argued, would “certainly be defective,” just as the Articles of Confederation had proved to beMason said, “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular, and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence”Slide2

How and why did the Framers devise an amendment process?

The Framers made the Constitution difficult to amend but not as difficult as it had been to amend the Articles of ConfederationUnder Article V of the Constitution amendments may be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a petition of two-thirds of the states calling for a special conventionCongress has the power to decide how a proposed amendment will be ratified, either by approval of three-fourths of state legislatures or by approval of three-fourths of special state conventions called to consider ratificationCongress also has the power to determine how much time states have to approve an amendmentIf a proposal is not ratified within that time, then the amendment failsSlide3

How and why did the Framers devise an amendment process?

Americans have not been reluctant to suggest changesSince 1789 more than ten thousand proposed amendments have been introduced in CongressOnly thirty-three amendments have gained enough votes to be submitted to the states for ratificationOf those thirty-three, twenty-seven have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the statesThe other process for proposing amendments—by two-thirds of the state legislatures calling a convention—has never been usedSlide4

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since 1789These amendments can be grouped into six categories:Bill of RightsAdopted in 1791, the first ten Amendments are referred to as the Bill of RightsMany consider this collection of amendments to be part of the original ConstitutionJames Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in response to debates surrounding the ratification of the ConstitutionSlide5

Bill of Rights

Congress sent the states twelve amendments for consideration as the Bill of RightsThe states ratified only tenHowever, in 1992 another of the original twelve was ratified as the Twenty-seventh Amendment, limiting Congress’s power to raise its own salariesThe twelfth proposed amendment, dealing with the number and apportionment of members of the House of Representatives never became part of the ConstitutionSlide6

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

Fundamental changesThe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments made changes that go to the core of the constitutional systemThey outlaw slavery, define national citizenship, impose equal protection and due process requirements on the states, and give Congress expansive enforcement powersBoth amendments resulted from the Civil War and resolved issues not settled at the Constitutional ConventionSome scholars argue that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments are equivalent to a second American constitution because of their effect on the American governmental systemSlide7

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

Expansion of suffrageSix constitutional amendments expand the right to vote or increase the opportunity for direct political participation in electionsThe Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments prohibit states from denying the franchise based on race, gender, age of persons 18 or older, or failure to pay “any poll or other tax”Twenty-third Amendment gives residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote in elections for president and vice presidentSlide8

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

Overturning Supreme Court decisionsTwo Supreme Court decisions proved so controversial that they led to successful efforts to amend the ConstitutionThe Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) which many interpreted as improperly expanding the jurisdiction of federal courts at the expense of the state courtsThe Sixteenth Amendment overturned Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895) which barred Congress from levying an income taxSlide9

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

RefinementsFour amendments address matter affecting Congress and the president that delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not anticipateThe Twelfth Amendment changed Article II, Section I, by requiring electors to make separate choices for president and vice presidentThe Twentieth Amendment shortened the time between an election and when the president, vice president, and members of Congress take officeSlide10

Refinement

This amendment reflected communications and travel changes that made it possible for officials and the public to know election results sooner and for newly elected officeholders to travel to the nation’s capital more quicklyThe Twenty-second Amendment limits presidents to two terms in officeThe amendment gave the force of law to what had been an established custom until President Franklin D. Roosevelt stood for election an unprecedented four timesThe Twenty-fifth Amendment addresses gaps in Article II about what should happen on the death, disability, removal, or resignation of the presidentSlide11

What types of constitutional amendments have been adopted?

MoralityIn the 1880s the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party argued that alcohol consumption had an unhealthy influence on American families and politicsAided by organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League, these reformers persuaded Congress to propose the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol (private possession and consumption were not outlawed)The amendment was ratified in 1919However, Americans soon concluded that the amendment was a mistake, and states ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, repealing the Eighteenth, in 1933The Twenty-first amendment is the only amendment that has been ratified using the state

convention methodSlide12

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

Near the end of the Constitutional Convention George Mason (author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights), Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry, and young South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney argued unsuccessfully for a bill of rightsOther delegates were not opposed to the idea, but they believed that the Constitution already contained many protections commonly found in bills of rights, such as the right to jury trial in criminal cases, habeas corpus, and prohibitions against bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and religious tests for holding officeSlide13

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

During the ratification debates some opponents argued that the lack of bill of rights opened the door to tyranny in the national governmentSeveral states directed their delegates to “exert all their influence and use all reasonable and legal methods” to obtain amendmentsEight states wanted a statement that powers not delegated to the national government should be reserved to the statesSeven wanted a guarantee of jury trial in civil cases, while six urged protection for religious freedomSlide14

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

Several prominent political figures also argued for a bill of rightsThomas Jefferson, then U.S. minister to France, wrote to James Madison expressing his concern over the “omission of a bill of rights…providing clearly…for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies”In his first inaugural address President George Washington urged Congress to amend the Constitution to express the “reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for public harmony”Slide15

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

During his campaign for a seat in the House of Representatives in the first Congress under the new Constitution, Madison promised to propose a bill of rightsHe made good on that promise by suggesting fourteen amendments to Articles I and IIIHe also proposed to add the following “prefix” to the Constitution:Slide16

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?“That all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people;

which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution”Slide17

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

Madison also recommended other additions to the body of the Constitution in his June 8, 1789, speech to the First Federal CongressHe advocated inserting the following guarantee in Article I, Section 10:“No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in all criminal cases”His proposal was not accepted, but we will discuss how that guarantee has been accomplished through the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentSlide18

Why was a bill or rights proposed for the United States Constitution?

Roger Sherman of Connecticut argued against inserting statements of rights into the body of the ConstitutionSherman believed it was too early to begin rewriting the Constitution itselfHe also feared that if amendments were added to the body of the Constitution, then the entire ratification process would have to start over again and might not succeedAgreeing with Sherman, the House sent a list of seventeen amendments to the Senate to be added at the end of the Constitution as a bill of rightsThe Senate reduced these amendments to twelveThe states ratified ten of the twelve amendments in 1791Slide19

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

Another way that the Constitution has developed and expanded is through judicial interpretationIn 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that judges have the power to decide whether acts of Congress, the executive branch, state laws, and even state constitutions violate the United States ConstitutionThe justices of the Supreme Court have the final say about the meaning of the ConstitutionThe power to declare what the Constitution means and whether the actions of government officials violate the Constitution is known as the power of judicial reviewSlide20

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

The Constitution does not mention the power of judicial reviewHowever, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists assumed that the Supreme Court would exercise judicial reviewThe practice traces its roots to the seventeenth-century English system of lawIt was well known an used by most state courts before adoption of the Constitution and even by the Supreme Court before being officially acknowledged in MarburySlide21

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

Alexander Hamilton defended the power in Federalist 78:“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning”In Marbury, Marshall asserted that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”Slide22

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

According to Marshall, judicial review rests on the following premises:The people exercised their sovereign power when they adopted the ConstitutionThe Constitution is a superior, paramount law that cannot be changed by ordinary meansParticular acts of Congress, the executive, and the states reflect temporary, fleeting views of what the law isSlide23

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

Acts of Congress, the executive, and the states that conflict with the fundamental law of the Constitution are not entitled to enforcement and must be disregardedJudges are in the best position to declare what the Constitution meansBy striking down laws and acts that conflict with the Constitution, they preserve the nation’s fundamental law and the true will of the peopleSlide24

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

Judicial review was neither immediately nor universally acceptedAnti-Federalists such as Brutus feared that the Court would use judicial review to eliminate the power of state courtsAmerica’s seventh president, Andrew Jackson, argued against it and threatened not to enforce Supreme Court decisions with which he disagreedNot even all judges accepted the validity of judicial reviewIn Eakin v. Raub (1825) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that the state supreme court had the power to review legislative acts and, if the acts were contrary to the state constitution, to declare such acts voidSlide25

What is judicial review and why is it controversial?

In that court decision Justice John B. Gibson dissented and identified several arguments against such judicial review:Legislatures are the repository of the people’s sovereignty, and the exercise of judicial review is an act of sovereignty, which should reside with the legislatures or the peopleJudicial review could lead to political turmoil if the other branches of government, or the states, refuse to acquiesce to the Court’s interpretation of the ConstitutionJudicial review makes the judiciary equal or even superior to the legislature, even though judges are not electedAll officers of the government take an oath to support the Constitution and therefore all must consider the constitutionality of their actionsThe judiciary is not infallible, Judges’ errors in interpreting the Constitution cannot be corrected at the ballot box, only by constitutional amendment