Constitution of the United States: Difference between revisions

United States Constitution
United States Constitution
	Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created	September 17, 1787
Ratified	June 21, 1788
Location	National Archives,; Washington, D.C.
Author(s)	twelve state delegations in; Philadelphia Convention
Signatories	39 of the 55 Philadelphia Convention delegates
Purpose	National constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:19, 22 December 2011

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the national government with its citizens, the states, and all those within the United States.

Unlike evolving historical constitutions, it is a prescriptive establishment of government.^[1] The first three Articles of the Constitution establish the three branches of the national government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a national judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. The last four Articles frame federal relationships among the governments of the nation and states for the people. The Tenth Amendment confirms its federal characteristics. All powers not enumerated are reserved to the respective states or to the people themselves.

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states in the name of "the People". The first ten amendments to it are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended by the people living under its jurisdiction a total of twenty-seven times.

Writers of the Constitution are memorialized as the Framers. The oldest charter of supreme law in continuous use,^[a] it influenced later international figures establishing national constitutions. Its principles guide American society in law and political culture. Those principles are extended in courts of law by judicial review. Recent impulses for reform center on concerns for extending democracy and balancing the Federal budget.

History

First government

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first constitution of the United States of America.^[2] The problem with the United States government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money".^[3]

Congress could print money, but by 1786, the money was useless. Congress could borrow money, but could not pay it back.^[3] No state paid all of their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.^[3] No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on the dates the principal came due.^[3]

The United States could not defend itself as an independent nation in the world of 1787. Most of the U.S. troops in the 625-man U.S. Army were deployed facing British forts on American soil. The troops had not been paid; some were deserting and the remainder threatened mutiny.^[4]Spain closed New Orleans to American commerce. The United States protested, to no effect. The Barbary Pirates began seizing American commercial ships. The Treasury had no funds to pay the pirates' extortion demands. The Congress had no more credit if another military crisis had required action.^[3]

The states were proving inadequate to the requirements of sovereignty in a confederation. Although the 1783 Treaty of Paris had been made between Great Britain and the United States with each state named individually, individual states violated their peace treaty with Britain. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the protests of both Great Britain and the Articles Congress.^[3]

In Massachusetts during Shays' Rebellion, Congress had no money to support a constituent state, nor could Massachusetts pay for its own internal defense. General Benjamin Lincoln had to raise funds among Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.^[5] During the upcoming Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a compact or even government. Connecticut paid nothing and "positively refused" to pay U.S. assessments for two years.^[6] A rumor had it that a "seditious party" of New York legislators had opened communication with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be funding the Creek Indian raids; Savannah was fortified, the State of Georgia under martial law.^[7]

Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislative business required all thirteen. When only one member of a state was on the floor, then that state’s vote did not count. If a delegation were evenly divided, no vote counted towards the nine-count requirement.^[8] Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreigners, raised armies and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern."^[9] 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. The dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.^[10]

Philadelphia Convention

On February 21, 1787, Congress resolved: "It is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." On the appointed day, May 14, few representatives were present. The Convention (also known as the Philadelphia Convention) only obtained a quorum—delegates of twelve of the states were there —on May 25.

The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution included most of the outstanding leaders, or Founding Fathers, of the new nation. They represented a wide range of interests, backgrounds, and stations in life, although many shared a common background: the vast majority of them were wealthy landowners and all were white males. All agreed, however, on the central objectives expressed in the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The primary aim of the Constitution was to create a strong elected government that was responsive to the will of the people, although there is some controversy over this. Many of the Founding Fathers believed that the new government needed to be insulated from the will of the people, hence the design of such features as the Electoral College or the election of Senators by the state legislatures. The concept of sovereignty of the people in a republic was new, a key ingredient of republicanism in the United States. By the time the Constitution was adopted, Americans had considerable expertise in the art of self-government. Long before independence was declared, the colonies were functioning governmental units controlled by the people. By 1777, ten of the thirteen states had adopted their own constitutions and most states had a governor elected by the state legislature which was elected by popular vote. Every state but Pennsylvania had a bicameral legislature as well.

The Articles of Confederation had tried to unite these self-governing states. The Constitution, by contrast, established a strong central, or federal, government with broad powers to regulate relations between the states and with sole responsibility in such areas as foreign affairs and defense.

Drafting the Constitution

The sense of potential disaster and the need for drastic change pervaded the Constitutional Convention that began its deliberations on May 25, 1787. All of the delegates were convinced that an effective central government with a wide range of enforceable powers must replace the weaker Congress established by the Articles of Confederation.

On May 29, Edmund Randolph, on behalf of the Virginia delegation, submitted fifteen propositions as a plan of government to the convention. Despite the fact that the delegates were limited by the instructions of their State legislatures to a revision of the Articles, Virginia had really recommended a new instrument of government. For example, a provision was made in the Virginia Plan for the separation of the three branches of government; under the Articles executive, legislative, and judicial powers were vested in the Congress. Furthermore, the legislature was to consist of two houses rather than one.

On May 30, the Convention devolved into a committee of the whole to consider the fifteen propositions of the Virginia Plan seriatim. These discussions continued until June 13, when the Virginia resolutions in amended form were reported out of committee.

The delegates agreed that the new government would be composed of three separate branches, based on ideals enumerated in John Locke's Two Treatises of Government: legislative, judicial, and executive, each with distinct powers to balance those of the other two branches. It was also agreed that the legislative branch, like the British Parliament, and the state legislatures (except Pennsylvania's), should consist of two houses.

Beyond this point, however, there were sharp differences of opinion that at times threatened to disrupt the convention and cut short its proceedings before a constitution was drafted. The Virginia Plan provided for proportional representation in both houses, which dissatisfied the smaller states.

The large states argued in favor of proportional representation in the legislature, so that each state would have voting power equal to its population, calling equal representation per state, "confessedly unjust." The small states, fearing domination by the large ones, insisted on equal representation per state. The question was settled by the Connecticut Compromise or "Great Compromise". A compromise spirit began to prevail; however, the small States were not willing to support a strong national government.

The Great Compromise ended the rift between the large and small states, and throughout the summer, the delegates worked out numerous other compromises. Some delegates, fearful of giving too much power to the people, argued for indirect election of all federal officials; others wanted as broad an electoral base as possible. Some wanted to exclude the western territories from eventual statehood; others saw the future strength of the nation in the lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains. There were sectional interests to be balanced by the three fifths compromise; differing views to be reconciled on the term, powers, and method of selection of the president; and conflicting ideas on the role of the federal judiciary.

The high quality of the delegates to the convention eased the way to compromise. Only a few of the great leaders of the American Revolution were absent: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both future presidents, were serving as America's envoys to France and Britain, respectively; John Jay was busy as secretary of foreign affairs of the Confederation, although he later wrote some of the Federalist Papers. A handful of others, including Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry, chose not to participate, believing that the existing governmental structure was sound. Of those in attendance, the best known by far was George Washington, commander of American troops and hero of the Revolution, who presided over the convention. Benjamin Franklin, the scientist, scholar, and diplomat, was also there. Therefore, there were such outstanding men as James Madison of Virginia, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, and Alexander Hamilton, the brilliant young lawyer and soldier from New York.

Even the youngest delegates, still in their twenties and thirties, had already displayed political and intellectual gifts. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams in London, "It really is an assembly of demigods."

Debates on the Virginia resolutions continued. The 15 original resolutions had been expanded into 23. Since these resolutions were largely declarations of principles, on July 24, a committee of five (John Rutledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania) was elected to draft a detailed constitution embodying the fundamental principles that had thus far been approved. The Convention adjourned from July 26 to August 6 to await the report of this "Committee of Detail". This committee, in preparing its draft of a Constitution, turned for assistance to the State constitutions, to the Articles of Confederation, to the various plans that had been submitted to the Convention and other available material. Overall, the report of the committee conformed to the resolutions adopted by the Convention, though on many clauses the members of the committee left the imprint of their individual and collective judgments. In a few instances, the committee avowedly exercised considerable discretion.

Some of the ideas the Constitution embodied were new, but many were drawn from Classical Antiquity and the British governmental tradition of mixed government, which was practiced in 12 of the 13 states and was advocated by the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. The United States Constitution was partly based on ideas from the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom, such as Article 39 from the British Magna Carta of 1215, which states:

"No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land."

The British Bill of Rights also acted as a source of ideas for the United States Constitution. For example, like the British Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials, contains a right to bear arms, and prohibits excessive bail and of "cruel and unusual punishments".

The Declaration of Independence also acted as an important guide, keeping the minds of the delegates fixed on the ideas of self-government and preservation of fundamental human rights. The writings of such European political philosophers as Montesquieu and John Locke were influential. What they sought to create was a balanced government of checks and balances.

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, further compromises were affected. Toward the close of these discussions, on September 8, another committee of five (William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, Alexander Hamilton of New York, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, James Madison of Virginia, and Rufus King of Massachusetts.) was appointed “to revise the style of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the house.”

On Wednesday, September 12, the report of the "committee of style" was ordered printed for the convenience of the delegates. For three days, the Convention compared this report with the proceedings of the Convention. The Constitution was then ordered engrossed on Saturday, September 15, and the work was done by Jacob Shallus.

The Convention met on Monday, September 17, for its final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result. A few deemed the new Constitution a mere makeshift, a series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Of the thirty-nine who did sign, probably no one was completely satisfied, and their views were ably summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said, "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, however, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best."

An amendment was agreed upon to change "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand" to "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." A paragraph making clear this change and a few minor modifications was appended to the document by Shallus, and attested to by secretary William Jackson.

The advocates of the Constitution, realizing the impending difficulty of obtaining the consent of the States to the new instrument of Government, 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, to ensure the action of the Convention appeared unanimous, Gouverneur Morris devised the formula “Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of September...In witness where of we have here unto subscribed our names.” Thirty-nine of the forty-two delegates present there upon “subscribed” to the document.

Ratification

It was within the power of the old congress 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 2/3 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 was a controversial decision at the time, since the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states. However, the new Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states, with Rhode Island signing on last in May 1790.

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, unanimously decided to submit the Constitution to the States for action. It made no recommendation for or against adoption.^[11]

Two parties soon developed, one in opposition, the Antifederalists, and one in support , the Federalists, of the Constitution, and the Constitution was debated, criticized, and expounded 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 the new instrument of government; however, the primary aim of the essays was for 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 closeness and bitterness of the struggle over ratification and the conferring of additional powers on the central government can scarcely be exaggerated. In some states, ratification was effected only after a bitter struggle in the state convention itself. In every state, the Federalists proved more united, and only they coordinated action between different states, as the Anti-federalists were localized and did not attempt to reach out to other states.

Delaware, on December 7, 1787, became the first State to ratify the new Constitution, with its vote being unanimous. Pennsylvania ratified on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23 (66.67%). New Jersey ratified on December 19, 1787, and Georgia on January 2, 1788, both with unanimous votes.

The requirement of ratification by nine states, set by Article Seven of the Constitution, was met when New Hampshire voted to ratify, on June 21, 1788.

In New York, fully two thirds of the convention delegates were at first opposed to the Constitution. Hamilton led the Federalist campaign, which included the fast-paced appearance of the Federalist Papers in New York newspapers. An attempt to attach conditions to ratification almost succeeded, but on July 26, 1788, New York ratified, with a recommendation that a bill of rights be appended. The vote was close—yeas 30 (52.6%), nays 27—due largely to Hamilton's forensic abilities and his reaching a few key compromises with moderate anti-Federalists led by Melancton Smith. Opposition to ratification was led by Governor George Clinton; the opposition also suggested that New York reserve the right to withdraw if the Constitution were not amended. Hamilton wrote Madison, as Secretary of the Virginia ratifying convention, and received the reply:

I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to
propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of
a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the
Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she
could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this
principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires
an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other
States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption
of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate
the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new
States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I
suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to
add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered
as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a
rejection.^[12]

The Continental Congress— which still functioned at irregular intervals— passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

Adoption and beginning

Ratification conventions

Rufus King, MA
For ratifying Constitution, influenced VA & NY
Luther Martin, MD
"Anti" in Articles Congress,
lost "Amend Articles" vote
Patrick Henry, VA
"Anti" like those in MA, NY, SC, lost "Amend before" vote
James Madison, VA
pushed "Amendments after", the Bill of Rights

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin urged unanimity, although the Convention had decided only nine state ratification conventions were needed to inaugurate the new government. The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation.^[13]

Massachusetts’s Rufus King assessed the Convention as a creature of the states, independent of the Articles Congress, submitting its proposal to Congress only to satisfy forms. Though amendments were debated, they were all defeated. On September 28, 1787, the Articles Congress resolved "unanimously" to transmit the Constitution to state legislatures for submitting to a ratification convention according to the Constitutional procedure.^[14] Several states enlarged the numbers qualified just for electing ratification delegates. In doing so, they went beyond the Constitution's provision for the most voters for the state legislature to make a new social contract among, more nearly than ever before, "We, the people".^[b]

Following Massachusetts's lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments.^[21] A minority of the Constitution’s critics continued to oppose the Constitution. Maryland’s Luther Martin argued that the federal convention had exceeded its authority; he still called for amending the Articles.^[22] Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation stated that the union created under the Articles was "perpetual" and that any alteration must be "agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State".^[23]

However, the unanimous requirement under the Articles made all attempts at reform impossible. Martin’s allies such as New York’s John Lansing, Jr., dropped moves to obstruct the Convention's process. They began to take exception to the Constitution "as it was", seeking amendments. Several conventions saw supporters for "amendments before" shift to a position of "amendments after" for the sake of staying in the Union. New York Anti’s "circular letter" was sent to each state legislature proposing a second constitutional convention for "amendments before". It failed in the state legislatures. Ultimately only North Carolina and Rhode Island would wait for amendments from Congress before ratifying.^[21]

Article VII of the proposed constitution stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect for the participating states.^[24] After a year had passed in state-by-state ratification battles, on September 13, 1788, the Articles Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified. The new government would be inaugurated with eleven of the thirteen. The Articles Congress directed the new government to begin in New York City on the first Wednesday in March,^[25] and on March 4, 1789, the government duly began operations.

George Washington had earlier been reluctant to go the Convention for fear the states "with their darling sovereignties" could not be overcome.^[26] But he was elected the Constitution's President unanimously, including the vote of Virginia’s presidential elector, the Anti-federalist Patrick Henry.^[27] The new Congress was a triumph for the Federalists. The Senate of eleven states would be 20 Federalists to two Virginia (Henry) Anti-federalists. The House would seat 48 Federalists to 11 Antis from only four states: Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and South Carolina.^[28]

Antis' fears of personal oppression by Congress were allayed by Amendments passed under the floor leadership of James Madison in the first session of the first Congress. These first ten Amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.^[29]

Ratification of the Constitution -- dates, states and votes --
	Date	State	Votes
	Date	State	Yes	No
1	December 7, 1787	Delaware	30	0
2	December 11, 1787	Pennsylvania	46	23
3	December 18, 1787	New Jersey	38	0
4	January 2, 1788	Georgia	26	0
5	January 9, 1788	Connecticut	128	40
6	February 6, 1788	Massachusetts	187	168
7	April 26, 1788	Maryland	63	11
8	May 23, 1788	South Carolina	149	73
9	June 21, 1788	New Hampshire	57	47
10	June 25, 1788	Virginia	89	79
11	July 26, 1788	New York	30	27
12	November 21, 1789	North Carolina	194	77
13	May 29, 1790	Rhode Island	34	32

Objections to a potentially remote federal judiciary were reconciled with 13 federal courts (11 states, Maine and Kentucky), and three Federal riding circuits out of the Supreme Court: Eastern, Middle and South.^[30] Suspicion of a powerful federal executive was answered by Washington’s cabinet appointments of once-Anti-Federalists Edmund Jennings Randolph as Attorney General and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State.^[31]^[32] What Constitutional historian Pauline Maier calls a national "dialogue between power and liberty" had begun anew.^[33]

Historical influences

Fundamental law

Several ideas in the Constitution were new. These were associated with the combination of consolidated government along with federal relationships with constituent states.

Enlightenment and Rule of law

John Locke
Two Treatises of Government
life, liberty and property

The due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to Magna Carta (1215).^[13] The document established the principle that the Crown's powers could be limited.

The "law of the land" was the King in Parliament of Lords and Commons. The once sovereign King was to be bound by law. Magna Carta as "sacred text" would become a foundation of English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a tyrant.

Both the influence of Edward Coke and William Blackstone were evident at the Convention.

In his Institutes of the Laws of England, Edward Coke interpreted Magna Carta protections and rights to apply not just to nobles, but to all British subjects of the Crown equally. Coke extended this principle overseas to colonists. 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 saw the Parliament as legislature, the representative of the people, and so sovereign over judges in equity law. In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" discussing cases, where ruling judges provided no rationale, he wrote one so as to connect and relate law and cases to one another in a way that had not been done so extensively before. "Commentaries" were the most influential books on law in the new republic among both lawyers generally and judges.

The most important influence from the European continent was from Enlightenment thinkers John Locke and the brilliant Montesquieu.

British political philosopher John Locke following the Glorious Revolution 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 in a social contract with the sovereign people was to serve them by protecting their rights. These basic rights of English and by extension all humanity, were life, liberty and property.

Montesquieu, emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. (This in itself reflects the influence of Polybius's 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution 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. The actuating spring driving an aristocracy is excellence and honor, the despot requires compliance and fear. In a democracy the activating spring is public virtue,

Division of power in a republic was informed by the British experience with mixed government, as well as study of republics ancient and modern. A substantial body of thought had been developed from the literature of republicanism in the United States, including work by John Adams. The experiences among the thirteen states after 1776 was remarkably different among those which had been charter, proprietary newly created royal colonies.

Native Americans

The Iroquois nations' political confederacy and democratic government have been credited as influences on the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.^[34]^[35] Historians debate how much the colonists borrowed from existing Native American models of government. But several founding fathers had contact with Native American leaders and had learned about their styles of government. The Iroquois Confederation could not be overlooked. They were "the most powerful Indian group on the continent." Their government did not always work perfectly, unanimously, but they were once secure within their territory, and had been "nearly invincible" to outsiders over the lifetime of the Convention delegates.^[36]

Prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson in colonial Virginia and Benjamin Franklin in colonial Pennsylvania were involved with leaders of the New York-based Iroquois Confederacy. The English needed allies to check expanding French networks. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania colonial claims extended north and west to Iroquois territory. The English could not expand without somehow bridging the cultural differences antagonizing their Amerindian neighbors.

This concern extended the length of the English settlement, and it motived study of Amerindian culture and governance. John Rutledge of South Carolina in particular is said to have read lengthy tracts of Iroquoian law to the other framers in Convention, beginning with the words, "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."^[37] Even in the 1750s and at the Albany Congress, Benjamin Franklin called for "some kind of union" of English colonies to effectively deal with Amerindian tribes. ^[38]

The delegates meeting at Albany were unable to align the independent assemblies that they represented. But seeing the dangers before them, they made recommendations outside proper channels, going over the heads of the colonial legislatures. The Albany Congress went directly to the sovereign Parliament. In this they exceeded their authority, "like those who met at Philadelphia in 1787 would," when the Constitutional Convention bypassed the independent state legislatures and appealed directly to the sovereign people.^[39]

The Iroquois experience with confederacy was both a model and a cautionary tale. Their "Grand Council" had no coercive control over the constituent members. This decentralization of authority and power had frequently plagued the Six Nations since the coming of the Europeans. The governance adopted by the Iroquois suffered from "too much democracy," among their national parts. Iroquois Oneida allied with the U.S. in its Revolution. Iroquois Seneca British ally Red Jacket negotiated with Congress after. Iroquois Mohawk British ally, Joseph Brant later warred on the U.S. The long term welfare of the Iroquois as a confederation suffered from intrigues among each separate Iroquois nation fostered at the hands of French, English, U.S. and the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.^[40]

The new United States faced a diplomatic and military world inhabited by the same Europeans. During the Articles period, individual states had been making separate agreements with European and Amerindian foreign nations apart from Congress. Without the Convention's central government, the framer's feared that the fate of the confederated Articles United States would be the same as the Iroquois Confederacy. In 1988, the Congress acknowledged the contribution of Iroquois forms of government to American fundamental law.^[41]

Bills of rights before

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.^[42] 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 text

The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention.

Authority and purpose

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
— United States Constitution, Preamble

The Preamble 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”.^[43]

This is an itemized social contract of democratic philosophy. It details how the more perfect union was to be carried out between the national government and the people. The people are to be provided (a) justice, (b) civil peace, (c) common defense, and (d) those things of a general welfare that they could not provide themselves. A government of "liberty and union, now and forever", unfolds when “We” begin and establish this Constitution.^[c]^[45]

National government

Legislature

Old House Wing (left)
U.S. Capitol
Old House Chamber
Old House Wing
Old Senate Wing
U.S. Capitol (north)
Old Senate Chamber
Old Senate Wing

Article One describes the Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The United States Congress is a bicameral body consisting of two co-equal houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

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 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." This provision gives Congress more than simply the responsibility to establish the rules governing its proceedings and for the punishment of its members; it places the power of the government primarily in Congress.

Article I Section 8 enumerates the legislative powers. The powers listed and all other powers are made the exclusive responsibility of the legislative branch:

The Congress shall have power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article I Section 9 provides a list of eight specific limits on congressional power and Article I Section 10 limits the rights of the states.

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article One to allow Congress to enact legislation that is neither expressly listed in the enumerated power nor expressly denied in the limitations on Congress. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the United States Supreme Court fell back on the strict construction of the necessary and proper clause to read that Congress had "[t]he foregoing powers and all other powers..."

Executive

Section 1 creates the presidency. The section states that the executive power is vested in a President. The presidential term is four years and the Vice President serves the identical term. This section originally set the method of electing the President and Vice President, but this method has been superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.

Qualifications: The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. An obsolete part of this clause provides that instead of being a natural born citizen, a person may be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The reason for this clause was to extend eligibility to Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, regardless of their place of birth, who were born under the allegiance of a foreign sovereign before the founding of the United States. Without this clause, no one would have been eligible to be president until thirty-five years after the founding of the United States.
Succession: Section 1 specifies that the Vice President succeeds to the presidency if the President is removed, unable to discharge the powers and duties of office, dies while in office, or resigns. The original text ("the same shall devolve") left it unclear whether this succession was intended to be on an acting basis (merely taking on the powers of the office) or permanent (assuming the Presidency itself). After the death of William Henry Harrison, John Tyler set the precedent that the succession was permanent; this practice was followed when later presidents died in office. Today the 25th Amendment states that the Vice President becomes President upon the death or disability of the President.
Pay: The President receives "Compensation" for being the president, and this compensation may not be increased or decreased during the president's term in office. The president may not receive other compensation from either the United States or any of the individual states.

The President’s House
Washington, DC
James Hoban design
The President’s House

Oath of office: The final clause creates the presidential oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Section 2 grants substantive powers to the president:

The president is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and of the state militias when these are called into federal service.
The president may require opinions of the principal officers of the federal government.
The president may grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment (i.e., the president cannot pardon himself or herself to escape impeachment by Congress).

Section 2 grants and limits the president's appointment powers:

The president may make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators who are present agree.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise described in the Constitution.
Congress may give the power to appoint lower officers to the President alone, to the courts, or to the heads of departments.
The president may make any of these appointments during a congressional recess. Such a "recess appointment" expires at the end of the next session of Congress.

Section 3 opens by describing the president's relations with Congress:

The president reports on the state of the union.
The president may convene either house, or both houses, of Congress.
When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date.

Section 3 adds:

The president receives ambassadors.
The president sees that the laws are faithfully executed.
The president commissions all the offices of the federal government.

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.

Judiciary

U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC
Old Supreme Court
U.S. Capitol basement

Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article requires that there be one court called the Supreme Court, and sets the kinds of cases it takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and 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.

Judicial power. III.Sec.1. is the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case contested by litigants. It connotes the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution provides an outline for the U.S. judicial system. Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 began to fill in detail. Current operating authority is Title 28 of the U.S. Code.^[46]

As of the First Congress, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit to sit as panels to hear appeals from the district courts.^[d] In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts with exclusive jurisdiction were made up of districts. These heard regional appeals before consideration on a national level at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds discretionary jurisdiction. Cases are not admitted before the Supreme Court until it decides that the Constitutional issues apply nationally.^[46]

To enforce its decisions, the Constitution grants federal courts both criminal contempt and civil contempt powers to coerce individuals. The court’s summary punishment for contempt immediately overrides all other punishments applicable to the subject party. Other implied powers include injunctive relief and habeas corpus remedies. The Court may imprisonment 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. But in rare cases, the theory of justice as equity can be used to intervene. In equity, a court takes up a concern for fairness. It rules on not only the letter of the law, but what may bring about good and right between the parties.^[46]

Arisings Clause. The Diversity (of Citizenship) Clause. III.Sec.2 Clause 1. Citizens of different states are citizens of the United States. 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.^[46]

Judicial review. III.Sec.2. U.S. courts have the power to rule legislative enactments or executive acts invalid on constitutional grounds. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any court, state or federal, high or low, has the power to refuse to enforce any statute or executive order it deems repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. 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.^[e] 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.^[f] 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.^[g]

Exceptions Clause. III. Sec.2. Clause 2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases about Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states. >^[47]

Standing. III. Sec2. Clause 2 – This is the rule for Federal courts to take a case. Justiciability is the standing to sue. A case cannot be hypothetical or concerning a settled issue. In the U.S. system, someone must have direct, real and substantial personal injury. The issue must be concrete and "ripe", that 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.^[h]

Treason. III.Sec.3. This part of the Constitution strips Congress of the Parliamentary power of changing or modifying the law of treason by simple majority statute. It's not enough to merely think treasonously; 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.^[i]

Federal relationships

The States

Article Four outlines the relation between the states and the relation between the federal government. In addition, it provides for such matters as admitting new states as well as 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, records, or proceedings 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, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process. Article Four also provides for the creation and admission of new states. 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 the states from invasion and violence.

Amendments

Amending clause. V. Section 1. Article V provides for amending the supreme "law of the land". Amendment of the state Constitutions at the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention required only a majority vote in a sitting legislature of a state, as duly elected representatives of its sovereign people. The very next session, meeting by the same authority, could likewise undo the work of any previous sitting assembly. This was not the "fundamental law" the founders such as James Madison had in mind.^[48]

Nor did they want to perpetuate the paralysis of the Articles by requiring unanimous state approval. The Articles of Confederation had proven unworkable within ten years of its employment.^[49] Between the two existing options for changing the supreme "law of the land", (a) too easy by the states, and (b) too hard by the Articles, the Constitution offered a federal balance of the national legislature and the states. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress could propose an Amendment, which can become valid "for all intents and purposes" as the Constitution, when three-fourths of the states approve.^[j] No Amendment can ever take away equal State votes in the U.S. Senate unless a state first agrees to it. No amendment regarding slavery or direct taxes could be permitted until 1808. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendmentin December 1865, direct tax on income was effected by the Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913.^[50]

Incorporated Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment is used by Federal courts to incorporate Amendments into the state constitutions as provisions to protect United States citizens. By 1968, the Court would hold that provisions of the Bill of Rights were "fundamental to the American scheme of justice". The Amendment in view by the Supreme Court was applicable to the states in their relationship to individual United States citizens in every state.^[51]

Among the Bill of Rights, Doug Linder counts the First, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment as fully incorporated into State governance. Most of the Fifth Amendment is incorporated, and a single provision of the Eighth. The Third Amendment is incorporated only in the U.S. Second Circuit, the states of New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The Supreme Court has not determined the Constitutional issue is yet "ripe" for national application in every state. The Seventh Amendment is not incorporated.^[52] Twentieth Century Amendments use the prohibitive phrase, "neither the United States nor any State" to comprehensively incorporate the Amendment into the States at the time of its ratification into the Constitution.

Central government

Article Six establishes the Constitution, and the 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 also 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."

Ratification

Ratification clause. VII. Sec. 1. Article Seven details how to initiate the new government as proposed. The Constitution was transmitted to the Articles Congress, then after debate, forwarded to the states. States were to ratify the Constitution in state conventions specially convened for that purpose. The ratification conventions would arise directly from the people voting, and not by the forms of any existing State constitutions.^[53]

The new national Constitution would not take effect until at least nine states ratified. It would replace the existing government under the Articles of Confederation only after three-fourths of the existing states agreed to move together by special state elections for one-time conventions. It would apply only to those states that ratified it, and it would be valid for all states joining after.^[46] The Articles Congress certified eleven ratification conventions had adopted the proposed Constitution for their states on September 13, 1788, and in accordance with its resolution, the new Constitutional government began March 4, 1789.^[25] (See above Ratification and beginning.)

The Amendments

Amendment of the state Constitutions at the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention required only a majority vote in a sitting legislature of a state, as duly elected representatives of its sovereign people. The next session of a regularly elected assembly could do the same. This was not the "fundamental law" the founders such as James Madison had in mind.

Nor did they want to perpetuate the paralysis of the Articles by requiring unanimous state approval. The Articles of Confederation had proven unworkable within ten years of its employment. Between the options for changing the "supreme law of the land", too easy by the states, and too hard by the Articles, the Constitution offered a federal balance of the national legislature and the states.

Procedure

Three steps to
Amendments

House-passed 12 proposals
2/3-majority, then to Senate
(States later ratify 10 of 12)

Senate-passed 12 proposals
2/3-majority, then 3/4 States =
Bill of Rights

Changing the "fundamental law" is a two-part process of three steps: amendments are proposed then they must be ratified by the states. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment, then to be ratified by the states.

To date, all amendments, whether ratified or not, have been proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress. Over 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; during the last several decades, between 100 and 200 have been offered in a typical congressional year. Most of these ideas never leave Congressional committee, and of those reported to the floor for a vote, far fewer get proposed by Congress to the states for ratification.^[k]

In the first step, the proposed Amendment must find a national super majority of 67% in Congress, both House (people) and Senate (states). The second step requires a super-super 75% majority of the states ratifying, representing a majority of the people in the states ratifying. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.^[54]

On attaining Constitutional ratification of the proposal by three-fourths of the states, at that instant, the "fundamental law" for the United States of America is expressed in that Amendment. It is operative without any additional agency. Although the Founders considered alternatives, no signature is required from the President. Congress does not have to re-enact. The Supreme Court does not have to deliberate. There is no delay from a panel of lawyers to re-draft and re-balance the entire Constitution incorporating the new wording. The Amendment, with the last required state ratifying, is the "supreme law of the land.

Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. Newer text is given precedence.^[l] Subsequent printed editions of the Constitution may line through the superseded passages with a note referencing the Amendment. Notes often cite applicable Supreme Court rulings incorporating the new fundamental law into American jurisprudence, when the first precedent was given, and in what way the earlier provisions were found void.

Over the last thirty years, there have been a few proposals for amendments in mainstream political debate. These include the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the Flag Desecration Amendment. Another may be repeal of the 17th Amendment, restoring selection of U.S. Senators to state legislatures.

Successful

The Constitution has twenty-seven amendments. The first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified simultaneously by 1791. The next seventeen were ratified separately over the next two centuries.

"Bill of Rights"

The National Archives displays the Bill of Rights as one of the three "Charters of Freedom." The original intent of these first ten Amendments was to restrict Congress from abusing its power. For example, the First Amendment -- "Congress shall make no law" establishing a religion. -- was ratified by the states before all states had, of their own accord, disestablished their official churches.

The Federalist Papers argued that amendments were not necessary to adopt the Constitution. But without the promise in their ratification conventions, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York could not have joined the Union as early as 1789. James Madison, true to his word, managed the proposed amendments through the new House of Representatives in its first session. The amendments that became the Bill of Rights were ten proposals of the twelve that Congress sent out to the states in 1789.^[m]

Later in American history, applying the Bill of Rights directly to the states developed only with the Fourteenth Amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny ... the equal protection of the laws.

The legal mechanism that courts use today to extend the Bill of Rights against the abuses of state government is called "incorporation". The extent of its application is often at issue in modern jurisprudence.

Generally, the Bill of Rights can be seen as the States addressing three major concerns: individual rights, federal courts and the national government’s relationships with the States.

Individual rights

The first Amendment defines American political community, based on individual integrity and voluntary association. Congress cannot interfere with an individual’s religion or speech. It cannot restrict a citizen’s communication with others to form community by worship, publishing, gathering together or petitioning the government.

The First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.

Trial and sentencing

Given their history of colonial government, most Americans wanted guarantees against the central government using the courts against state citizens. The Constitution already had individual protections such as strictly defined treason, no ex post facto law and guaranteed habeas corpus except during riot or rebellion. Now added protections came in five Amendments.

Protecting the accused. The Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been found in this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

The Fifth Amendment forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the Fifth" or "Pleading the Fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment, otherwise known as the Miranda rights after the Supreme Court case. It also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation", the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

The Seventh Amendment assures trial by jury in civil cases.

Restraining the judges. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

The Eighth Amendment forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Congress nor States

In 1789, future Federal-state relations were uncertain. To begin, the States in their militias were not about to be disarmed. And, if Congress wanted a standing army, Congress would have to pay for it, not "quarter" soldiers at state citizen expense. The people always have all their inalienable rights, even if they are not all listed in government documents. If Congress wanted more power, it would have to ask for it from the people in the states. And if the Constitution did not say something was for Congress to do, then the States have the power to do it without asking.

Potential military coercion

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of adult men in state militias to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.^[n] Once the new Constitution began government, states petitioned Congress to propose amendments including militia protections. New Hampshire’s proposal for amendment was, "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." New York proposed, "... a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State."^[o] Over time, this amendment has been expanded by the courts to individual rights, including their overturning state legislation regulating hand guns.

Applying the Second Amendment only to the Federal government, and not to the states, persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen in Louisiana. The Supreme Court held, citizens must "look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens from the state, rather than the national, government." Federal protection of an individual interfering with the state’s right to disarm any of its citizens came in Presser v. Illinois (1886). The Supreme Court ruled the citizens were members of the federal militia, as were "all citizens capable of bearing arms." A state cannot "disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government". The Court was harking back to the language establishing a federal militia in 1792.^[p]

In 1939, the Supreme Court returned to a consideration of militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Court addressed the enforceability of the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting a short-barreled shotgun. Held in the days of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, this ruling referenced units of well equipped, drilled militia, the Founders "trainbands", the modern military Reserves.^[q] It did not address the tradition of an unorganized militia. Twentieth century instances have been rare but Professor Stanford Levinson has observed consistency requires giving the Second Amendment the same dignity of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth.^[r]

Once again viewing federal relationships, the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) determined that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. It is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so it applies to the states.

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers during peacetime without the consent of the owners. The states had suffered during the Revolution following the British Crown confiscating their militia's arms stored in arsenals in places such as Concord, Massachusetts, and Williamsburg, Virginia. 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?"^[55] The only existing case law directly regarding this amendment is a lower court decision in the case of Engblom v. Carey.^[56] However, it is also cited in the landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut, in support of the Supreme Court's holding that the constitution protects the right to personal privacy.

Constitutional relationships

The Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

Subsequent

Amendments to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights cover many subjects. The majority of the seventeen later amendments stem from continued efforts to expand individual civil or political liberties, while a few are concerned with modifying the basic governmental structure drafted in Philadelphia in 1787. Although the United States Constitution has been amended 27 times, only 26 of the amendments are currently in effect because the twenty-first amendment supersedes the eighteenth.

Citizen rights

Several of the amendments have more than one application, but five amendments have concerned citizen rights. American citizens are free. There will be equal protection under the law for all. Men vote, women vote, DC residents vote,^[s] and 18-year olds vote.

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolishes slavery and authorizes Congress to enforce abolition. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in part, defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship. Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their gender. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

The Twenty-third Amendment (1961) grants presidential electors to the District of Columbia. DC has three votes in the Electoral College as though it were a state with two senators and one representative in perpetuity. If Puerto Rico were given the same consideration, it would have seven Electoral College votes.^[t]

Three branches

Seven amendments relate to the three branches of the Federal government. Congress has three, the Presidency has four, the Judiciary has one.

Congress will begin in January, not March. It can tax income. It cannot raise its own pay before re-election.

The Sixteenth Amendment (1913) authorizes unapportioned federal taxes on income. Twentieth Amendment (1933) in part, changes details of congressional terms. The Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992) limits congressional pay raises.

The Presidency has had four amendments regulating the office. The President will be chosen by name, not selected from a pool. The President is succeeded by the Vice President without a special election. The President is limited to two terms. Presidential succession is through the Vice President, elected officers of the Congress, then executive Cabinet.

The Twelfth Amendment (1804) changes the method of presidential elections so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for president and vice president. The Twentieth Amendment (1933) in part, changes details of presidential terms and of presidential succession. The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) gives the president Limits of two terms. The Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967) changes details of presidential succession, provides for temporary removal of president, and provides for replacement of the vice president.

The Judiciary has one amendment effecting its jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment (1795) in part, clarifies judicial power over foreign nationals.

States and abuses

State citizens. The states have been protected from their citizens by a Constitutional Amendment. Citizens are limited when suing their states in Federal Court. The Eleventh Amendment (1795) in part, limits ability of citizens to sue states in federal courts and under federal law.

Most states. All states have been required to conform to the others when those delegations in Congress could accumulate super-majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and three-fourths of the states with the same opinion required it of all. (a) The states must not allow alcohol sold for profit. (b) The states may or may not allow alcohol sold for profit. The Eighteenth Amendment (1919) prohibited the manufacturing, importing, and exporting of alcoholic beverages (see Prohibition in the United States). Repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. Twenty-first Amendment (1933) repeals Eighteenth Amendment. Permits states to prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages.

State legislatures. Occasionally in American history, the people have had to strip state legislatures of some few privileges due to widespread, persisting violations to individual rights. States must administer equal protection under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. States must guarantee rights to all citizens of the United States as their own. State legislatures will not be trusted to elect U.S. Senators. States must allow all men to vote. States must allow women to vote. States cannot tax a U.S. citizen’s right to vote.

Under the Constitution, the U.S. government was restricted from infringing on citizen rights. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in part, defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law.

Voting in the states has not always been so universal as it is today, not all men, not women not 18-year olds. In 1870, regardless of practice, most states had no legal racial bar to voting by African-Americans, Asians or Native-Americans. But the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting. Then all men could vote by law. In 1920, while most states allowed at least some women's suffrage, the Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their gender. Then all women could vote by law. In 1971, states allowed voting at ages 21, 20, 19 and 18. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

By 1913, several state legislatures allowed their selection of U.S. Senator by direct popular vote. However, the Seventeenth Amendment (1913) converts all state elections for U.S. senators to popular election.

Some state legislatures restricted the right to vote among their citizens more than others. Although most states in 1964 did not restrict voting by the use of poll taxes, the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials. U.S. citizens cannot be taxed to vote.

Unratified

Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed by Congress, twenty-seven have passed. Six have failed ratification by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures. Two have passed their deadlines. Four are technically in the eyes of a Court, still pending before state lawmakers (see Coleman v. Miller). All but one are dead-ends.

One remaining

The "Titles of Nobility Amendment" (TONA), proposed by the 11th Congress on May 1, 1810, would have ended the citizenship of any American accepting "any Title of Nobility or Honour" from any foreign power. Some maintain that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states, and that a conspiracy has suppressed it, but this has been thoroughly debunked.^[57]

The proposed amendment addressed the same "republican" and nationalist concern evident in the original Constitution, Article I, Section 9. No officer of the United States, "without the Consent of the Congress, [shall] accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." The Constitutional provision is unenforceable because the offense is not subject to a penalty.

Known to have been ratified by lawmakers in twelve states, the last in 1812, this amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and could still be ratified were the state legislatures to take it up.

Abandoned

Quit by practice

The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, proposed by the 1st Congress on September 25, 1789, defined a formula for how many members there would be in the United States House of Representatives after each decennial census. Ratified by eleven states, the last being Kentucky in June 1792 during Kentucky's initial month of statehood, this amendment contains no expiration date for ratification. In the abstract it may be procedurally ratified.

As written, it became inapplicable when the population of the United States reached ten million. Allocation of seats for a state delegation is no longer increased or decreased by each change of 10,000 population. Since 1940, the number of Representatives in the U.S. House has been fixed at 435. Decennial population counts are apportioned among the states in a formula by law.

The Corwin Amendment, proposed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861, would have forbidden any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, meaning slavery.

It was ratified by only Ohio, Maryland and controversially, Illinois, before the outbreak of the Civil War.^[u] Lincoln took it under consideration in his First Inaugural as a means of preserving the Union. Four additional states seceded and war came. Before his assassination, Lincoln pushed the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress and out to the state legislatures to abolish slavery forever.^[v]

Quit by policy

Starting with the proposal of the 18th Amendment in 1917, each proposed amendment has included a deadline for passage in the text of the amendment. Five without a deadline became Amendments.^[w] One proposed amendment without a deadline has not been ratified. The Child Labor Amendment of 1924.

A child labor amendment proposed by the 68th Congress on June 2, 1924. It provides, "The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age." This amendment is highly unlikely to be ratified, since subsequent federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

Time ran out

There are two amendments that were approved by Congress but were not ratified by enough states prior to the ratification deadline set by Congress:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which reads in part "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Proposed by the 92nd Congress on March 22, 1972, it was ratified by the legislatures of 35 states, and expired on either March 22, 1979 or on June 30, 1982, following a controversial three-year extension of the ratification deadline passed by the 95th Congress in 1978.

Of the 35 states ratifying it, four later rescinded their ratifications before the extended ratification period. A fifth stipulated that its first approval would not extend with Federal law. Such reversals are controversial; no court has ruled on the question. During ratification of the 14th Amendment Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their earlier approvals. But their ratifications were counted towards three-fourths of the states when the 14th Amendment was ultimately proclaimed part of the Constitution in 1868.

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was proposed by the 95th Congress on August 22, 1978. Had this amendment been ratified, it would have granted to Washington, D.C. two Senators and at least one member of the House of Representatives as though the District of Columbia were a state. Ratified by the legislatures of only 16 states (out of the required 38), the proposed amendment expired on August 22, 1985.

Judicial review

The way the Constitution is understood is influenced by court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to as precedents. Judicial review is the power of the Court to examine federal legislation, executive agency rules and state laws, 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.".^[x]

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.^[58]

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.^[59]

Early Court roots in the founding

John Jay, 1789-1795
New York co-author
Federalist Papers
John Marshall, 1801-1835
Fauquier County delegate
Virginia Ratification Convention

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.^[60]

As to judicial review and the state legislatures, the Convention had a draft clause unanimously agreed to, that Congress would have power to "negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union." Cooler heads prevailed, and according to the political scientist Herman Pritchet, the clause was determined to be a clumsy, inconvenient device which would stir up resentment in the states. It was replaced with the Supremacy Clause which specifically required state judges to apply the Federal Constitution to state laws or constitutions.^[61]

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."^[61]^[y]

John Jay (NY), 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 (Ct), a delegate in the Constitutional Convention, as was John Rutledge (SC), Washington’s recess appointment as Chief Justice who served in 1795. John Marshall (Va), 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 (Pa) for ten years, John Blair, Jr. (Va) for five, John Rutledge (SC) 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."^[61] John Marshall, newly confirmed Chief Justice had been a Federalist in the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788. On the Marshall Court, which handed down decisions unanimously for its first twenty years, were several Justices with distinguished pasts.

William Paterson (NJ) had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an important U.S. Senator drafting the Judiciary Act of 1789, and was on the Court for 13 years until 1806. William Cushing (Ma) was Washington’s longest seated nominee to the Supreme Court, serving until 1810. He had presided over the 1783 case in Massachusetts which abolished slavery in that state by judicial interpretation of the State Constitution. Joseph Story (Ma) succeeded Cushing on the Court as Madison’s appointee. He was Marshall’s scholar of reference, influential in maritime, equity, and anti-slavery law. These three converged in Joseph Story’s opinion in the 1841 Amistad case.

Alfred Moore (NC), who served until 1804, was a Revolutionary War veteran as was John Marshall. Following Washington’s inauguration, Moore had helped secure North Carolina’s ratification as the 12th state after its first Ratification Convention had rejected Union. As North Carolina Attorney General, he argued unsuccessfully against federal judicial review in Bayard v. Singleton. William Johnson (SC) succeeded Moore as the first non-Federalist (Jefferson’s) Supreme Court appointee. He had been speaker of the South Carolina House, and would be influential on the Court during the Nullification Crisis. Samuel Chase (MD), a signer of the Declaration was on the Court 14 years until 1811 with a politically volatile career.^[z]

While review of state legislation and appeals from state supreme courts was understood, in the Marshall Court's landmark Barron v. Baltimore, the ruling held that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, and not the states. For a list of major rulings in the Marshall Court, see Marshall Court Cases.

In the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, the Supreme Court asserted its authority of judicial review over Acts of Congress. It finds 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.{{refn| group = lower-alpha |In this, John Marshall leaned on the argument of Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.^[63]^[aa] The United States government, as created by the Constitution is a limited government, and a statute contrary to it is not law. 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." Courts were required to choose the Constitution over Congressional law. Further, justices take a Constitutional oath to uphold it as "Supreme law of the land".^[64]

"This argument has been ratified by time and by practice ..."^[ab]^[ac] "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.^[66]

Something of a crisis arose when, in 1935 and 1936, the Supreme Court under a reactionary majority, 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.^[62]

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 is power of judicial review.^[67]

The Court controls almost all of its business by choosing what cases to consider, writs of certiorari. In this way it can avoid expressing an opinion if it sees an issue is currently embarrassing or difficult. 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.^[ad] 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. Having the money to sue or being injured by government action alone are not enough.^[67]

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."^[68]

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 it wants to avoid handing down decrees it cannot enforce. The Court seeks to minimize situations where it asserts itself superior to either President or Congress, but it is expected to hold Federal officers accountable for their actions under law. The Supreme Court’s "most striking claim" is assuming power to declare acts of Congress as unconstitutional. To sustain this power, it self-limits its passing on constitutional questions.^[69]

Justice Brandeis summarized four general guidelines that the Supreme Court uses to avoid constitutional decisions relating to Congress:^[ae]

The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law nor decide open questions unless absolutely necessary to arrive at a case decision.
A rule of constitutional law is not formulated more broadly than the precise facts in the case require.
Even if constitutional grounds are properly presented to break new ground, the Court will choose statutes or general law for the basis of its decision if it can.
Even if the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is seriously in doubt, if it can be interpreted in a way so as to make it constitutional, the Court will choose that constitutional construction.^[69]

Likewise with the Executive Department, Edwin Corwin observed that the Court does sometimes rebuff presidential pretentions, but it more often tries to rationalize them. It is tactically much more difficult to confront a President. Against Congress, an Act is merely "disallowed." In the executive, exercising judicial review to void presidential policy produces "some change in the external world" beyond the ordinary judicial sphere.^[70]

John Marshall was one of the first to recognize how the president holds "important political powers" which are untouchable by judicial review. The president’s executive and political privilege allows great discretion. There are areas where he is "accountable to his country only in his political character, and to his own conscience." For the Supreme Court to enforce performance of presidential duties in law would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." Marshall was quoted in Court rulings on the President’s duty to enforce the law during Reconstruction. This doctrine extends to the sphere of foreign affairs. Justice Robert Jackson explained the Courts self-limitation where "without relevant information" it would review or nullify action taken on information properly held secret. 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."^[71]

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."^[72]

Critics of the Court object in two principle ways to its self-restraint in judicial review, deferring as it does as a matter of doctrine to Acts of Congress and Presidential actions. Its inaction is said to allow "a flood of legislative appropriations" which permanently create an imbalance between the states and federal government "never dreamed of by the Founding Fathers." On the other hand, Supreme Court deference to Congress and the executive compromises American protection of civil rights, political minority groups and aliens.^[73]

The Supreme Court cannot be imprudent without risking its status as a co-equal branch of government. It is most effective when American political life reinforce its rulings. "But self-restraint is not the ultimate in judicial wisdom." The Court has a duty to give guidance on basic problems of life and governance in a democracy.^[74]

Subsequent Courts

Supreme Courts under the leadership of subsequent Chief Justices have also used judicial review to interpret the Constitution among individuals, states and Federal branches. Notable contributions were made by the Chase Court, the Taft Court, the Warren Court, and the Rehnquist Court.

Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointee, serving as Chief Justice from 1864 to 1873. His career encompassed service as a U.S. Senator and Governor of Ohio. He has 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 Banks 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.

Scope of judicial review expanded

Salmon P. Chase ^[af]
Union, Reconstruction
William H. Taft ^[ag]
commerce, incorporation
Earl Warren ^[ah]
due process, civil rights
William Rehnquist ^[ai]
federalism, privacy

William Howard Taft was a Harding appointment to Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930. A Progressive Republican from Ohio, his earlier Republican career included Ohio Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Governor-General of the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt’s Secretary of War. He was a one-term President. He sought non-coercive foreign policies in "Dollar Diplomacy" and in his private foundation, "League to Enforce Peace." In his presidential term, Taft’s domestic agenda encompassed trust-busting and strengthening the Instate Commerce Commission.

As Chief Justice, he advocated the Judiciary Act of 1925 that brought the Federal District Courts under the administrative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the newly united branch of government initiated its own separate building in use today. 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. Later extensions added the Spanish-American War acquisitions of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

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 v. Olsen that upheld Congressional regulation of commerce. Olmstead v. U.S. allowed exclusion of evidence obtained without a warrant based on application of the 14th Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches. Wisconsin v. Illinois ruled the equitable power of the United States can impose positive action on a state to prevent its inaction from damaging another state.

Earl Warren was an Eisenhower nominee, Chief Justice from 1943 to 1953. 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 Grissold v. Connecticut concerning privacy, and Engel v. Vitale relative to free speech.

William Rehnquist was a Reagan appointment to Chief Justice, serving from 1986 to 2005. Following study at Stanford and Harvard, he clerked under Justice Robert H. Jackson, served as a legal adviser and writer for Barry Goldwater in his presidential campaign, and practiced law in Arizona before his Nixon appointment as Justice in 1971.

As Chief Justice, Rehnquist was a team builder. In conference, no Justice spoke a second time until all had spoken. No Justice, including himself, was assigned to write a second holding for the Court until all had written one. When Rehnquist was in the minority, he deferred to the majority to choose the writer of the majority opinion. 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. Fundamental law was not only to restrain states. 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

National Archives **Rotunda**
virtual tour online^[75]

There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as being a cornerstone of a type of civic religion. There is evidence for this with the prominent enshrining 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 cathedral-like Rotunda by day, in multi-ton bomb-proof vaults by night at the National Archives.^[76] The business of erecting a shrine for the worship of the Declaration of Independence strikes some academic critics looking from point of view of the 1776 or 1789 America as "idolatrous, and also curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution." 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 potentially, there could be others, believing as he did that "institutions must advance also".^[77] Samuel P. Huntington discusses common connections for most peoples in nation-states, a national identity as product of common ethnicity, ancestors and experience, common language, culture and religion. The United States has a fate different from "most peoples". according to Huntington, since American identity is "willed affirmation" of what Huntington refers to as the American creed: (a) individual rights (b) majority rule and (c) a constitutional order of limited government power. Whittle Johnson in The Yale Review sees a sort of "covenanting community" of freedom under law, which, "transcending the 'natural' bonds of race, religion and class, itself takes on transcendent importance".^[78] According to this argument, political ideals emphasize a sort of political orthodoxy which enable an ethnic diversity unequaled in Britain, France, Germany or Japan.^[79] Veneration of the Constitution was assisted in 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge dedicated the bronze-and-marble shrine for public display of the Constitution at the main building.^[80]

Worldwide

National constitutions

The world historian William Hardy McNeill taking a long view, sees the U.S. as "one of a family of peoples and nations" making a history apart from the European civilization of their colonization.^[81]

The United States Constitution is an expression of diverging from their colonial rule. Its effect is reflected in the ideals of a democratic republican constitution as limiting the rulers of a state apart and above sitting law-givers in a parliament. The concepts of governance influencing others internationally are not only found among similarities in phrasing and entire passages from the U.S. Constitution. They are in the principles of the rule of law and recognition of individual rights. The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and judicial review has motivated foreign constitutionalists to reconsider possibilities for their own future.^[81] This view informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War,^[aj] his contemporary and ally Benito Juarez of Mexico,^[ak] and the second generation of 19th constitutional nationalists, Jose Rizal of The Philippines^[al] and Sun Yat-sen of China.^[am]

Generally the influence of the Constitution is documented in trans-national history of ideas, foreign translations, and exchanges between Americans and their counterparts from the beginning with smuggled translations into Spanish America until today with conferences among national legislators. Innovations include constitutional conventions, written constitutions, ratification and amendment procedures. There are common provisions for presidential executives, federalism and judicial review.^[81]

George Athan Billias, studying the Constitution and related documents, describes six waves of influence: (1) From 1776-1811, after the American Revolution began, it influenced northwestern Europe and its colonial connections. (2) from 1811-1848, after the decline of Napoleon's reputation, it was referenced by Latin American, Caribbean, and European nationalists. (3) From 1898-1918, after the Spanish American War, nationalist movements borrowed from the U.S. Constitution in Asia and Latin America. (4) From 1918-1945, after World War I, its influence spread with anti-colonial movements in Africa Mid-east and Asia. (5) From 1945-1974, after World War II, independence movements consulted it. Most recently, (6) From 1974-1989, after United Nations expansion, once nondemocratic regimes, including European ones, transitioned towards constitutional democracies incorporating elements of the U.S. Constitution.^[81]

This influence is beyond theory or ideology; rather, it addresses people living together under a common governance in a modern nation-state. The variety of state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, Convention debates, Federalist Papers, ratification debates and the Bill of Rights, all show a way to a constitutional federalism which reconciles national power, social diversity and personal liberty across different places, populations and cultures.

Over its international history, American constitutionalism has waxed and waned in influence. Democratizing countries have often chosen the more centralized, consolidated British or French models. Internationally, it appears that those of Confucian and Islamic cultures do not readily adopt some of its premises. Nevertheless, "the influence of American constitutionalism abroad was profound in the past and remains a remarkable contribution to humankind’s search for freedom under a system of laws."^[81]

Translations

The Constitution has been translated into many languages, many of which can be found online. Sources include governmental agencies and universities, private foundations and associations.

The Federal Judicial Center has links to other materials about the United States government and judicial system. The site has materials in 16 languages besides English, such as Dari, Indonesian, Malay, Serb, and Turkish. ^[87] The Center's statutory mission includes compiling histories and research resources and conferences. Its goal is to improve administration of justice in the U.S. and foreign countries. The Center works with judges and court officials of other nations, and other judicial education organizations.^[88]

The Columbia Law Review sponsors the International Constitutional Law Project. It has over 100 constitutions and provides English translations of and other textual material related to constitutional documents. The Project cross-references those documents for quick comparison of constitutional provisions internationally, internally within each document, and with background information.^[89] The Historical Society of Philadelphia lists translations of the United States Constitution into various foreign languages. One example is Armenian.^[90]

University of Chicago Library features constitutional resources on the influence of the U.S. Constitution abroad. It holds texts of non-U.S. Constitutions, case reports, books, journals, articles and current commentary.^[91] At the University of Richmond’s Constitution Finder, there are international constitutions, historical constitutions, and state constitutions. For China, there is the 1982, 1947, and Hong Kong Constitutions, and other documents. For the United States, there is the Constitution of 1787 with amendments and five unpassed amendments, the Articles of Confederation, the Confederate Constitution and 84 state constitutions past and present.^[92]

Professor James Chen has annotated the Spanish translation prepared by the U.S. State Department. His notes focus on the problems and nuances of this translation.^[93] Nguyen Canh Binh has translated the Constitution into Vietnamese.^[94] The Bill of Rights has been translated into Hawaiian.^[95] Elizabeth Claire has rewritten the Constitution into simplified English.^[96] Some of the many translations of The Constitution into other languages are listed below.

Commemoratives

National governments since the 19th Century have widely issued stamps in the administration of their internal and international communication. The government-run postal services use stamps to picture cherished national figures and symbolic scenes. They commemorate events that the issuing government represents as significant to their population. The U.S. Constitution has been commemorated both in the United States and internationally among those revering its contribution to their law and politics.

150th Anniversary
2nd Spanish Republic, 1937

In 1937, the U.S. Post Office under the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt released a commemorative postage stamp celebrating the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The engraving on this issue is after an 1856 painting by Junius Brutus Stearns of Washington and shows delegates signing the Constitution at the 1787 Convention. George Washington is on dais with an open document in hand, James Madison sitting at table with pages taking his famous notes on the convention.

Amendments to the United States Constitution are treated as integral to the document. One commemoration of the 19th Amendment permitting women the right to vote was celebrated in a U.S. commemorative in 1950 and again in 1970 (pictured). The woman is voting in a curtained mechanical voting booth. She choses levers to punch or mark her votes on a paper roll. The Model T has a man driver with a banner "Votes for women" on the car, women riders and marchers as though in a parade.

The Second Polish Republic issued a commemorative stamp of the U.S. and Polish Constitutions in 1938 under the government of Prime Minister, Major General Składkowski It features George Washington in military regalia, holding a 48-star American Flag and a drawn sword. Thomas Paine holds a book on a rod, and Kosciuszko poses with a cross and saber. The next scene is of a line of infantry flying a polish flag. The right panel shows the Statue of Liberty imposed in front of the New York 1930s skyline.

In 1937, the Second Spanish Republic commemorated the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution under the government of Prime Minister Juan Negrín of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). The Statue of Liberty is the central focus, flanked by Spanish flags and United States Flags. The Spanish Republic Flag of red, yellow and purple, as battle flag or civil ensign, lacks the coat of arms.

Criticism

Several academics have criticized the Constitution. University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato wants an amendment to organize primaries to prevent a "frontloaded calendar" long before the election. Such an amendment would prevent a "race by states to the front of the primary pack", which subverts the national interest, in Sabato's view.^[118] Sabato details more objections in his book A More Perfect Constitution.^[118] In an interview in Policy Today, Sabato is critical of the "incoherent organization of primaries and caucuses,"^[119] and faults the Constitution for enabling presidents to continue unpopular wars,^[119] for requiring presidents to be "natural born citizens",^[119] for lifetime tenure for Supreme Court judges which "produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."^[119] He also writes that "If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17% of the country’s population."^[119] Richard Labunski appeals to the same Article V to apply popular pressure outside of established partisan and corporate channels. Like minded citizens could connecting by internet, organize congressional district meetings, gather in a state convention, and send delegates to a "pre-convention" in D.C. It would forward subject areas for Constitutional amendment to the States. The participating states would then trigger a Second Constitutional Convention. In his book "The Second Constitutional Convention", Labunski outlines ten subject areas that should be considered for constitutional amendments.^[120] Harvard law school professor Lawrence Lessig has called for state-based activism to summon a Second Constitutional Convention.^[121]

University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson wonders whether it makes sense to give "Wyoming the same number of votes as California, which has roughly seventy times the population".^[122] Levinson thinks this imbalance causes a "steady redistribution of resources from large states to small states."^[122] Levinson is critical of the Electoral College because the Electoral College allows the possibility of electing presidents who do not win the majority of votes.^[122] Three times in American history, presidents have been elected by the Electoral College despite failing to win the popular vote: 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison) and 2000 (George W. Bush).^[123]^[124]^[125]^[126] The current Constitution does not give the people a quick way to remove incompetent or ill presidents, in his view.^[126] Others have criticized the politically driven redistricting process popularly known as gerrymandering.^[127]

Yale professor Robert A. Dahl sees a problem with an American tendency towards worship of the Constitution itself. He sees aspects of American governance which are "unusual and potentially undemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system."^[128] Levinson and Labunski and others have called for a Second Constitutional Convention,^[129] although professors like Dahl believe there is no real hope this would ever happen.^[128]

Notes

^ Common law traditions have earlier written components. Edward Coke began widely publishing English principles of law in 1628. Parts of San Marino's Constitution also dates to the 1600s. In structuring a new government, the Founders believed that similar cases would bring similar results. They took into consideration models of philosophy and history, "republics ancient and modern."
^ Connecticut expanded electorate to add all town meeting voters;^[15] Massachusetts dropped property requirements;^[16] New Hampshire dropped some property requirements, and added town delegates;^[17] Rhode Island put the question to a referendum which rejected the ratification convention, the Federalist minority centered in Newport and Providence boycotted the election;^[18] Virginia dropped "legal and Constitutional requirements" to expand the freehold electorate;^[19] New York dropped property requirements, timed assembly elections at the same time, and allowed up to five sequential days of voting until the voting rolls were "complete".^[20]
^ The discussion in Adler cites Lincoln's explication of the preamble that "common welfare" meant those things the people could not provide themselves. In 1830, Senator Haynes of South Carolina had made a speech for "Liberty first, and Union afterwards". Daniel Webster of Massachusetts made a "Reply to Haynes" speech for "Union and Liberty, now and forever, one and inseparable".^[44]
^ The Judiciary Act of 1789 established 6 Supreme Court justices. The number was periodically increased until 10 in 1863, allowing Lincoln additional appointments. After the Civil War, vacancies reduced the number to 7. Congress finally fixed the number at 9.
^ 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.^[46]
^ For instance, ‘collateral estoppel’ directs that when a litigant wins in a state court, they cannot sue in federal court to get a more favorable outcome.
^ Recently numerous habeas corpus reforms have tried to preserve a working "relationship of comity" and simultaneously streamline the process for state and lower courts to apply Supreme Court interpretations.^[46]
^ 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.^[46]
^ 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 War of the Roses.^[46]
^ An alternative method of proposing an Amendment consists of application to Congress by the super-majority of two-thirds of the state legislatures call for another constitutional convention. That convention’s proposal then requires ratification by the same super-super majority as the first method, three-fourths of the states. While this has never been done, in the 1980s, 32 of the necessary 34 states called for a convention to propose a "balanced budget amendment."
^ As no convention has been called, it is unclear how one would work in practice.
^ The new "supreme law of the land" takes the place of the old. For instance, the Thirteenth Amendment nullifies any permissive language relating to slavery in the original text of the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. Constitutionally, nothing prevents a future amendment from actually changing the older text.
^ The second of the twelve proposed amendments, regarding the compensation of members of Congress, remained unratified until 1992, when the legislatures of enough states finally approved it; as a result, after pending for two centuries, it became the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The first of the twelve, which is still technically pending before the state legislatures for ratification, pertains to the apportionment of the United States House of Representatives after each decennial census. The most recent state whose lawmakers are known to have ratified this proposal is Kentucky in 1792, during that Commonwealth's first month of statehood.
^ Dispersing armaments in the face of superior force was a hard learned lesson. At the outbreak of hostilities in the American Revolution, Royal Governors captured arsenals of the colonial legislatures in Concord, Massachusetts, and Williamsburg, Virginia, for example.
^ Three states adopted the Constitution in ratification conventions addressing the need for an amendment guaranteeing state militia and citizen right to bear arms. Four states petitioned for protection of militia and the right to bear arms: New York, Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts proposals included it as minority reports.^[55]
^ In Presser v. Illinois, An armed mob of 400 in the city of Chicago paraded through the streets without a permit to intimidate an immigrant neighborhood. Illinois argued the armed individuals violated the state military code.^[55]
^ Without a demonstrated relationship between "a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" and "a well regulated militia", the Court could not say the Second Amendment guaranteed carrying it in public. The Court did not see it as "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense [of the United States]." Moncure does not address any parallels between the 1930s of Al Capone and modern day drug cartels, nor any use of gun regulation by local law enforcement, state National Guard, or the armed forces for policing borders and homeland security.^[55]
^ Governor William Tuck of Virginia used the unorganized militia to break a 1946 strike by employees of the Virginia Electric and Power Company.^[55]
^ DC residents constitutionally vote for President by the Amendment. The vote for a non-voting delegate in Congress, and local offices as Congress allows by law.
^ Since the 1964 presidential election, the Electoral College has equaled 538, the sum of 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 3 for DC. Were DC to have been made a state, its allotted representation in Congress would have been one. Since the 1960s, both major political parties nominating presidential candidates make provision for proportionate representation in their national conventions for DC and the U.S. Territories as though they were states. Except for DC, no Constitutional provision has been made for them in the Electoral College. For example, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have 7 Electoral College votes, that is, two count for senators, five for its proportion in the House over the last three censuses. As it is, they have one non-voting delegate in the House who can cast a vote in committees of direct concern to Puerto Rico.
^ Illinois lawmakers—sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time—approved the unratified amendment, but that action is of questionable validity. The proposed amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and a Court held it could not stop state legislatures from debating it.
^ The fundamental change in American society and its ethos, adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War, and 140 years of Federal and state jurisprudence makes an adoption restoring African slavery unlikely.
^ Amendments after the 18th Amendment which did not have deadlines and became Constitutional were (a) the 19th Amendment (women's voting), (b) the 23rd Amendment (DC electoral votes), (c) the 24th Amendment (poll taxes), (d) the 25th Amendment (Presidential succession), and (e) the 26th Amendment (voting age).
^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 261 (1901), commenting on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820); Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 529-530, 536 (1905)(concurring opinions of Justices Harlan and Brown), that once the Constitution has been extended to an area, its coverage is irrevocable; Boumediene v. Bush - That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.
^ The Supreme Court found 658 cases of invalid state statutes from 1790-1941 before the advent of Civil Rights cases in the last half of the Twentieth Century^[62]
^ Samuel Chase began his career as a fire-brand state-righter, then became a staunch Federalist. He was impeached by the Jefferson Republicans in Congress in 1804 led by Representative John Randolph (VA). Chase had fiercely objected to Jefferson’s party overturning the Judiciary Act of 1801 and eliminating the life-time appointed judgeships which the Act had created. Chase was impeached on eight counts of his practice as a lower court federal judge. Although the Senate trial was presided over by Republican Vice-President Aaron Burr, the old Federalist was acquitted. Nevertheless, judges became less publically partisan, political majorities deferred to judicial independence, and federal judges limited their instructions to juries in the future.
^ Although it may be that the true meaning of the Constitution to the people of the United States in 1788 can only be divined by a study of the state ratification conventions, the Supreme Court has used the Federalist Papers as a supplemental guide to the Constitution since their co-author, John Jay, was the first Chief Justice.
^ The entire quote reads, "This argument has been ratified by time and by practice, and there is little point in quibbling with it. Of course, the President also takes an oath to support the Constitution."^[65]
^ The presidential reference is to Andrew Jackson's disagreement with Marshall's Court over Worcester v. Georgia, finding Georgia could not impose its laws in Cherokee Territory. Jackson replied, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!", and the Trail of Tears proceeded. Jackson would not politically interpose the U.S. Army between Georgia and the Cherokee people as Eisenhower would do between Arkansas and the integrating students.
^ "Advisory opinions" are not the same as "declaratory judgments." (a) These address rights and legal relationships in cases of "actual controversy", and (b) the holding has the force and effect of a final judgment. (c) There is no coercive order, as the parties are assumed to follow the judgment, but a "declaratory judgment" is the basis of any subsequent ruling in case law.
^ Louis Brandeis concurring opinion, ‘’Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority’’, 1936.
^ The Chase Court, 1864–1873, in 1865 were the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice, U.S.; Hon. Nathan Clifford, Maine; Stephen J. Field, Justice Supreme Court, U.S.; Hon. Samuel F. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court; Hon. Noah H. Swayne, Justice Supreme Court, U.S.; Judge Morrison R. Waite
^ The Taft Court, 1921–1930, in 1925 were - James Clark McReynolds, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,William Howard Taft (Chief Justice), Willis Van Devanter, Louis Brandeis. - Edward Sanford, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Fiske Stone
^ The Warren Court, 1969–1986, of 1973 were Felix Frankfurter; Hugo Black; Earl Warren (Chief Justice); Stanley Reed; WIlliam O. Douglas. - Tom Clark; Robert H. Jackson; Harold Burton; Sherman Minton
^ The Rehnquist Court, , 1986–2005.
^ "Secession was indeed unconstitutional...military resistance to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.^[82] "the primary purpose of the Constitution was ... to create ‘a more perfect union’... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.^[83]
^ Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.^[84]
^ 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.^[85]
^ 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 Ching Dynasty. Dr. Sun was the greatest among them. The fact that Dr. Sun Yat-sen became a great revolutionary and thinker is inseparable from the influence of American democracy, especially the U.S. Constitution, upon him.^[86]

Citations

^ Riemer, Neal, et al., The New World of Politics: an Introduction to Political Science. Collegiate Press, 1997 ISBN 0-939693-41-0 Viewed December 17, 2011. p. 92. Riemer describes Edmund Burke’s use of “prescriptive” Constitution to describe the United States and France to distinguish them from “historical” constitutions such as those of Great Britain. Burke approved of the United States Constitution, but objected to the Constitution of the French Revolution on the grounds that it did not account for “balance”, “political community” and “prudence”.
^ Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 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.")
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Maier 2010, pp. 11–13.
^ Maier 2010, pp. 12–13, 19.
^ Maier 2010, pp. 15–16.
^ Bowen 2010, pp. 129–130.
^ Bowen 2010, p. 31.
^ Maier 2010, p. 13.
^ Wood 1998, pp. 356–367, 359.
^ Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.
^ Morris (1987) pp 298-99.
^ Madison to Hamilton, July 20, 1789
^ ^a ^b NARA. "National Archives Article on the Entire Constitutional Convention". Retrieved December 16, 2007.
^ Maier 2010, pp. 54–58.
^ Maier 2010, p. 134.
^ Maier 2010, p. 140.
^ Maier 2010, p. 218.
^ Maier 2010, p. 223.
^ Maier 2010, p. 228.
^ Maier 2010, p. 327.
^ ^a ^b Maier 2010, p. 431.
^ Maier 2010, p. 430.
^ WikiSource. "Articles of Confederation". Retrieved 2009-07-18.
^ "Constitution of the United States of America". WikiSource. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
^ ^a ^b Maier 2010, p. 429.
^ Maier 2010, p. 20.
^ Maier 2010, p. 438.
^ Maier 2010, p. 433.
^ Maier 2010, p. 456.
^ Maier 2010, p. 464.
^ "Founding Fathers: Virginia". FindLaw Constitutional Law Center. 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-14.
^ "The Jefferson Cyclopedia", Thomas Jefferson & John P. Foley, Funk and Wagnalls Company, NY and London 1900, "Anti-Federalists, and" p. 38
^ Maier 2010, p. 468.
^ "The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth". Ratical.com. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
^ Armstrong, Virginia Irving (1971). I Have Spoken: American History Through the Voices of the Indians. Pocket Books. p. 14. SBN 671-78555-9.
^ Graymont, Barbara. The Iroquois in the American Revolution, 1972. ISBN 0-8156-0083-6, p.vii.
^ Mee, Charles L., Jr. The Genius of the People. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. p. 237
^ Morgan, Edmund S., Benjamin Franklin 2002. ISBN 0-300-10162-7 (pbk) p.80-81
^ Morgan, Edmund S., op.cit. p.84
^ Greymont, Barbara. Op.cit. p.66
^ "H. Con. Res. 331, October 21, 1988" (PDF). United States Senate. Retrieved 2008-11-23.. In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
^ NARA. "National Archives Article on the Bill of Rights". Retrieved 2007-12-16.
^ Adler 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
^ Adler 1975, p. 87.
^ James Madison was said to believe that the speech alone would "crush" nullification forever. (This country of ours, H.E. Marshall Part VII, Chapter 73.)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ O'Connor 2010.
^ FindLaw for legal professionals, with links to US Government Printing office official website, Cornell Law School, Emory Law School, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893, (1998, 2000 Supplement). Viewed November 28, 2011.
^ Wood 1998, pp. 306–308.
^ Wood 1998, pp. 356–367.
^ FindLaw for legal professionals, with links to US Government Printing office official website, Cornell Law School, Emory Law School, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893, (1998, 2000 Supplement).
^ Linder, Doug. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: The Incorporation Debate, University of Missouri, Kansas City. viewed November 14, 2011.
^ Linder, Doug. Op.Cit., viewed November 14, 2011.
^ National Archives and Records Administration. "National Archives Article on the Constitution". Retrieved 2008-09-01.
^ Lutz, Donald (1994). Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help). The 21st Amendment is the only successful Amendment that employed state conventions for ratification.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Moncure 1990.
^ "U.S. Constitution: Third Amendment". FindLaw.com. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
^ "The Missing Thirteenth Amendment". Thirdamendment.com. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 134.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 136.
^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 137–138.
^ ^a ^b ^c Pritchett 1959, p. 138.
^ ^a ^b Pritchett 1959, p. 142.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 140.
^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 140–141.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 141.
^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 141–142.
^ ^a ^b Pritchett 1959, p. 145.
^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 148–149.
^ ^a ^b Pritchett 1959, p. 149.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 150.
^ Pritchett 1959, pp. 150–151.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 151.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 153.
^ Pritchett 1959, p. 154.
^ The United States National Archives Rotunda |The 360 NARA Rotunda Tour stands the visitor in the center, allows zoom in, click and drag to look at the inlaid marble floor and ornate ceiling.
^ Wood, Gordon S., Dusting off the Declaration, The New York Review of Books, Aug 14, 1997
^ Levinson 1987, p. 115.
^ Levinson 1987, p. 118.
^ Levinson 1987, p. 119.
^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Billias 2009, xi–xv.
^ Farber 2003, p. 3.
^ Farber 2003, p. 198.
^ Stacy 2003, p. 436.
^ Malcolm 1920, p. 109.
^ QuingYu 1988, p. 193.
^ ^a ^b "International Judicial Relations — Translated Material". Fjc.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ The Federal Judicial Center, viewed 07/27/2011.
^ International Constitutional Law Project, viewed 07/27/2011.
^ Search Results - united states constitution
^ University of Chicago Library, viewed 07/27/2011.
^ Constitution Finder, viewed 07/27/2011.
^ "SSRN-The Constitution of the United States in Spanish: A Service for the American People (La Constitucion de los Estados Unidos en Espanol: Un Servicio para el Pueblo Americano) by James Ming Chen". Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ "Alphabooks". Alphabooks.vn. Retrieved 2009-05-04. ^{[dead link]}
^ http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/bor-Hawaiian.pdf
^ http://elizabethclaire.com/store/media/general/free-download/US-Constitution-in-Simple-English.pdf
^ "Arabic-Constitution-2" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "دستور الولايات المتحدة الأميركية - دستور الولايات المتحدة الأميركية". America.gov. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "The Constitution Papers CD. Service of Linguistics Technology" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-10-08.
^ "Simplified Chinese translation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "Constitution of the United States (1787)". Usinfo.org. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ Theusa.nl Template:Nl icon
^ "French translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "German Constitution 8-19" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "Verfassung" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "U.S. Constitution". Israel.usembassy.gov. Retrieved 2011-08-02.^{[dead link]}
^ "Hungarian translation of the U.S. Constitution". Hungarian.hungary.usembassy.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ "Italian translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "Japanese translation of the U.S. Constitution". Aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov. 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ "Korean translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "Portuguese translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ "Russian translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ Slovakia.usembassy.gov^{[dead link]}
^ "Spanish translation of the U.S. Constitution". Cato.org. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ "United States of America: Constitución de 1787 en español". Pdba.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 2009-05-04.
^ "Constitución de los Estados Unidos de América — The U.S. Constitution Online". USConstitution.net. 2010-01-24. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
^ Kyiv.usembassy.gov^{[dead link]}
^ ^a ^b By Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). "An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Larry J. Sabato interviewed by Policy Today's Dan Schwartz (18 October 2007). "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". Policy Today. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
^ Labunski, Richard. The Second Constitutional Convention: How the American People Can Take Back Their Government (2000) ISBN 0-9677498-7-5, p.6.
^ Alesh Houdek (Nov 16 2011). "Has a Harvard Professor Mapped Out the Next Step for Occupy Wall Street?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2011-011-17. Lawrence Lessig's call for state-based activism on behalf of a Constitutional Convention could provide the uprooted movement with a political project for winter {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Reviewed by Robert Justin Lipkin (January, 2007). "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How the People Can Correct It)". Widener University School of Law. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Popular vote, Electoral College vote at odds?". USA Today. November 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
^ Levinson, Sanford (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-19-530751-1.
^ Randall Kennedy (May 12, 2008). "Books: Randall Kennedy". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
^ ^a ^b Nora Krug (reviewer) (March 23, 2008). "Radical Re-readings -- Our Undemocratic Constition: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It) by Sanford Levinson". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
^ Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). "Toward a More Democratic Congress? Our Imperfect Democratic Constitution: The Critics Examined". Boston University Law Review. 89. Boston University Law Review: 609–628. Retrieved 2009-09-20.^{[dead link]}
^ ^a ^b Robert A. Dahl (February 11, 2002). "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?". Yale University Press. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
^ "Professor Stanford Levinson Proposes a New Constitutional Convention". Colorado Law -- Univ. of Colorado at Boulder. January 25, 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

References

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 9780275340605.
Billias, George (2009). American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-1989 : a global perspective. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 9780814791073.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia : the story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September, 1787. New York: Little, Brown. ISBN 9780316102612.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Farber, Daniel (2003). Lincoln's Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226237930.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Levinson, Sanford (1987). "Pledging Faith in the Civil Religion; Or, Would You Sign the Constitution?". 29 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 113. Retrieved 15 December 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
McDonald, Forrest (1985). Novus ordo seclorum: the intellectual origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700603114.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification : the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684868547.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
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). 19 LINCOLN L. REV. 1-25. Retrieved 11 November 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
O'Connor, Tom (2010). "Constitutional structure". Retrieved 14 November 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Pritchett, C. Herman (1959). The American Constitution. New York: McGraw-Hill.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Quing Yu, Li (1988). "Dr. Sun Yat Sen and the U.S. Constitution". In Starr, Joseph Barton (ed.). The United States constitution: its birth, growth, and influence in Asia. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 9789622092013.
Stacy, Lee, ed. (2003). Mexico and the United States. Vol. 2. London: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 9780761474029.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
Wood, Gordon (1998). The creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807847237.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

External links

National Archives

Official U.S. government sources

Constitution and related resources: Library of Congress
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States: Annotated constitution, with descriptions of important cases (official publication of U.S. Senate)

Listen to this article
(2 parts, 38 minutes)

Part 2

These audio files were created from a revision of this article dated

Error: no date provided

, and do not reflect subsequent edits.

Non-governmental web sites

U.S. Constitution Online
Mobile friendly version of the Constitution
Audio reading of the Constitution in MP3 format provided by the University of Chicago Law School
Annotated Constitution by the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Library of Congress (hyperlinked version published by Cornell University)

Template:Link FA Template:Link FA Template:Link GA Template:Link GA Template:Link GA

[2] Common law traditions have earlier written components. Edward Coke began widely publishing English principles of law in 1628. Parts of San Marino's Constitution also dates to the 1600s. In structuring a new government, the Founders believed that similar cases would bring similar results. They took into consideration models of philosophy and history, "republics ancient and modern."

[22] Connecticut expanded electorate to add all town meeting voters;^[15] Massachusetts dropped property requirements;^[16] New Hampshire dropped some property requirements, and added town delegates;^[17] Rhode Island put the question to a referendum which rejected the ratification convention, the Federalist minority centered in Newport and Providence boycotted the election;^[18] Virginia dropped "legal and Constitutional requirements" to expand the freehold electorate;^[19] New York dropped property requirements, timed assembly elections at the same time, and allowed up to five sequential days of voting until the voting rolls were "complete".^[20]

[47] The discussion in Adler cites Lincoln's explication of the preamble that "common welfare" meant those things the people could not provide themselves. In 1830, Senator Haynes of South Carolina had made a speech for "Liberty first, and Union afterwards". Daniel Webster of Massachusetts made a "Reply to Haynes" speech for "Union and Liberty, now and forever, one and inseparable".^[44]

[50] The Judiciary Act of 1789 established 6 Supreme Court justices. The number was periodically increased until 10 in 1863, allowing Lincoln additional appointments. After the Civil War, vacancies reduced the number to 7. Congress finally fixed the number at 9.

[51] Judicial Review is explained in Hamilton's Federalist No. 78. It also has roots in Natural Law expressions in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court first ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison, the second was Dred Scott.^[46]

[52] 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.

[53] 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.^[46]

[55] 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.^[46]

[56] 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 War of the Roses.^[46]

[59] An alternative method of proposing an Amendment consists of application to Congress by the super-majority of two-thirds of the state legislatures call for another constitutional convention. That convention’s proposal then requires ratification by the same super-super majority as the first method, three-fourths of the states. While this has never been done, in the 1980s, 32 of the necessary 34 states called for a convention to propose a "balanced budget amendment."

[64] As no convention has been called, it is unclear how one would work in practice.

[66] The new "supreme law of the land" takes the place of the old. For instance, the Thirteenth Amendment nullifies any permissive language relating to slavery in the original text of the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. Constitutionally, nothing prevents a future amendment from actually changing the older text.

[67] The second of the twelve proposed amendments, regarding the compensation of members of Congress, remained unratified until 1992, when the legislatures of enough states finally approved it; as a result, after pending for two centuries, it became the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The first of the twelve, which is still technically pending before the state legislatures for ratification, pertains to the apportionment of the United States House of Representatives after each decennial census. The most recent state whose lawmakers are known to have ratified this proposal is Kentucky in 1792, during that Commonwealth's first month of statehood.

[68] Dispersing armaments in the face of superior force was a hard learned lesson. At the outbreak of hostilities in the American Revolution, Royal Governors captured arsenals of the colonial legislatures in Concord, Massachusetts, and Williamsburg, Virginia, for example.

[70] Three states adopted the Constitution in ratification conventions addressing the need for an amendment guaranteeing state militia and citizen right to bear arms. Four states petitioned for protection of militia and the right to bear arms: New York, Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts proposals included it as minority reports.^[55]

[71] In Presser v. Illinois, An armed mob of 400 in the city of Chicago paraded through the streets without a permit to intimidate an immigrant neighborhood. Illinois argued the armed individuals violated the state military code.^[55]

[72] Without a demonstrated relationship between "a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" and "a well regulated militia", the Court could not say the Second Amendment guaranteed carrying it in public. The Court did not see it as "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense [of the United States]." Moncure does not address any parallels between the 1930s of Al Capone and modern day drug cartels, nor any use of gun regulation by local law enforcement, state National Guard, or the armed forces for policing borders and homeland security.^[55]

[73] Governor William Tuck of Virginia used the unorganized militia to break a 1946 strike by employees of the Virginia Electric and Power Company.^[55]

[75] DC residents constitutionally vote for President by the Amendment. The vote for a non-voting delegate in Congress, and local offices as Congress allows by law.

[76] Since the 1964 presidential election, the Electoral College has equaled 538, the sum of 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 3 for DC. Were DC to have been made a state, its allotted representation in Congress would have been one. Since the 1960s, both major political parties nominating presidential candidates make provision for proportionate representation in their national conventions for DC and the U.S. Territories as though they were states. Except for DC, no Constitutional provision has been made for them in the Electoral College. For example, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have 7 Electoral College votes, that is, two count for senators, five for its proportion in the House over the last three censuses. As it is, they have one non-voting delegate in the House who can cast a vote in committees of direct concern to Puerto Rico.

[78] Illinois lawmakers—sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time—approved the unratified amendment, but that action is of questionable validity. The proposed amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and a Court held it could not stop state legislatures from debating it.

[79] The fundamental change in American society and its ethos, adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War, and 140 years of Federal and state jurisprudence makes an adoption restoring African slavery unlikely.

[80] Amendments after the 18th Amendment which did not have deadlines and became Constitutional were (a) the 19th Amendment (women's voting), (b) the 23rd Amendment (DC electoral votes), (c) the 24th Amendment (poll taxes), (d) the 25th Amendment (Presidential succession), and (e) the 26th Amendment (voting age).

[81] 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.

[87] The Supreme Court found 658 cases of invalid state statutes from 1790-1941 before the advent of Civil Rights cases in the last half of the Twentieth Century^[62]

[88] Samuel Chase began his career as a fire-brand state-righter, then became a staunch Federalist. He was impeached by the Jefferson Republicans in Congress in 1804 led by Representative John Randolph (VA). Chase had fiercely objected to Jefferson’s party overturning the Judiciary Act of 1801 and eliminating the life-time appointed judgeships which the Act had created. Chase was impeached on eight counts of his practice as a lower court federal judge. Although the Senate trial was presided over by Republican Vice-President Aaron Burr, the old Federalist was acquitted. Nevertheless, judges became less publically partisan, political majorities deferred to judicial independence, and federal judges limited their instructions to juries in the future.

[90] 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.

[93] 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."^[65]

[94] 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.

[97] "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.

[100] Louis Brandeis concurring opinion, ‘’Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority’’, 1936.

[106] 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

[107] 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

[108] The Warren Court, 1969–1986, of 1973 were Felix Frankfurter; Hugo Black; Earl Warren (Chief Justice); Stanley Reed; WIlliam O. Douglas. - Tom Clark; Robert H. Jackson; Harold Burton; Sherman Minton

[109] The Rehnquist Court, , 1986–2005.

[119] "Secession was indeed unconstitutional...military resistance to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.^[82] "the primary purpose of the Constitution was ... to create ‘a more perfect union’... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.^[83]

[121] Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.^[84]

[123] 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.^[85]

[125] 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 Ching Dynasty. Dr. Sun was the greatest among them. The fact that Dr. Sun Yat-sen became a great revolutionary and thinker is inseparable from the influence of American democracy, especially the U.S. Constitution, upon him.^[86]

[1] Riemer, Neal, et al., The New World of Politics: an Introduction to Political Science. Collegiate Press, 1997 ISBN 0-939693-41-0 Viewed December 17, 2011. p. 92. Riemer describes Edmund Burke’s use of “prescriptive” Constitution to describe the United States and France to distinguish them from “historical” constitutions such as those of Great Britain. Burke approved of the United States Constitution, but objected to the Constitution of the French Revolution on the grounds that it did not account for “balance”, “political community” and “prudence”.

[3] Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 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.")

[FOOTNOTEMaier201011–13-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Maier 2010, pp. 11–13.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201012–13,_19-5] Maier 2010, pp. 12–13, 19.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201015–16-6] Maier 2010, pp. 15–16.

[FOOTNOTEBowen2010129–130-7] Bowen 2010, pp. 129–130.

[FOOTNOTEBowen201031-8] Bowen 2010, p. 31.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201013-9] Maier 2010, p. 13.

[FOOTNOTEWood1998356–367,_359-10] Wood 1998, pp. 356–367, 359.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201014,_30,_66-11] Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.

[12] Morris (1987) pp 298-99.

[13] Madison to Hamilton, July 20, 1789

[National_Archives_Article_on_the_Entire_Constitutional_Convention-14] NARA. "National Archives Article on the Entire Constitutional Convention". Retrieved December 16, 2007.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201054–58-15] Maier 2010, pp. 54–58.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010134-16] Maier 2010, p. 134.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010140-17] Maier 2010, p. 140.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010218-18] Maier 2010, p. 218.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010223-19] Maier 2010, p. 223.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010228-20] Maier 2010, p. 228.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010327-21] Maier 2010, p. 327.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010431-23] Maier 2010, p. 431.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010430-24] Maier 2010, p. 430.

[Articles_of_Confederation-25] WikiSource. "Articles of Confederation". Retrieved 2009-07-18.

[Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America-26] "Constitution of the United States of America". WikiSource. Retrieved 2007-12-16.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010429-27] Maier 2010, p. 429.

[FOOTNOTEMaier201020-28] Maier 2010, p. 20.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010438-29] Maier 2010, p. 438.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010433-30] Maier 2010, p. 433.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010456-31] Maier 2010, p. 456.

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010464-32] Maier 2010, p. 464.

[33] "Founding Fathers: Virginia". FindLaw Constitutional Law Center. 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-14.

[34] "The Jefferson Cyclopedia", Thomas Jefferson & John P. Foley, Funk and Wagnalls Company, NY and London 1900, "Anti-Federalists, and" p. 38

[FOOTNOTEMaier2010468-35] Maier 2010, p. 468.

[ratical-36] "The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth". Ratical.com. Retrieved 2007-10-27.

[danile_usner_1992-37] Armstrong, Virginia Irving (1971). I Have Spoken: American History Through the Voices of the Indians. Pocket Books. p. 14. SBN 671-78555-9.

[38] Graymont, Barbara. The Iroquois in the American Revolution, 1972. ISBN 0-8156-0083-6, p.vii.

[39] Mee, Charles L., Jr. The Genius of the People. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. p. 237

[40] Morgan, Edmund S., Benjamin Franklin 2002. ISBN 0-300-10162-7 (pbk) p.80-81

[41] Morgan, Edmund S., op.cit. p.84

[42] Greymont, Barbara. Op.cit. p.66

[43] "H. Con. Res. 331, October 21, 1988" (PDF). United States Senate. Retrieved 2008-11-23.. In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[National_Archive_Article_on_the_Bill_of_Rights-44] NARA. "National Archives Article on the Bill of Rights". Retrieved 2007-12-16.

[FOOTNOTEAdler197526,_80,_136-45] Adler 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.

[FOOTNOTEAdler197587-46] Adler 1975, p. 87.

[48] James Madison was said to believe that the speech alone would "crush" nullification forever. (This country of ours, H.E. Marshall Part VII, Chapter 73.)

[FOOTNOTEO'Connor2010-49] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ O'Connor 2010.

[54] FindLaw for legal professionals, with links to US Government Printing office official website, Cornell Law School, Emory Law School, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893, (1998, 2000 Supplement). Viewed November 28, 2011.

[FOOTNOTEWood1998306–308-57] Wood 1998, pp. 306–308.

[FOOTNOTEWood1998356–367-58] Wood 1998, pp. 356–367.

[60] FindLaw for legal professionals, with links to US Government Printing office official website, Cornell Law School, Emory Law School, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893, (1998, 2000 Supplement).

[61] Linder, Doug. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: The Incorporation Debate, University of Missouri, Kansas City. viewed November 14, 2011.

[62] Linder, Doug. Op.Cit., viewed November 14, 2011.

[National_Archives_Constitution_of_the_United_States-63] National Archives and Records Administration. "National Archives Article on the Constitution". Retrieved 2008-09-01.

[65] Lutz, Donald (1994). Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help). The 21st Amendment is the only successful Amendment that employed state conventions for ratification.

[FOOTNOTEMoncure1990-69] Moncure 1990.

[74] "U.S. Constitution: Third Amendment". FindLaw.com. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 4 May 2009.

[77] "The Missing Thirteenth Amendment". Thirdamendment.com. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959134-82] Pritchett 1959, p. 134.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959136-83] Pritchett 1959, p. 136.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959137–138-84] Pritchett 1959, pp. 137–138.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959138-85] Pritchett 1959, p. 138.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959142-86] Pritchett 1959, p. 142.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959140-89] Pritchett 1959, p. 140.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959140–141-91] Pritchett 1959, pp. 140–141.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959141-92] Pritchett 1959, p. 141.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959141–142-95] Pritchett 1959, pp. 141–142.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959145-96] Pritchett 1959, p. 145.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959148–149-98] Pritchett 1959, pp. 148–149.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959149-99] Pritchett 1959, p. 149.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959150-101] Pritchett 1959, p. 150.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959150–151-102] Pritchett 1959, pp. 150–151.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959151-103] Pritchett 1959, p. 151.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959153-104] Pritchett 1959, p. 153.

[FOOTNOTEPritchett1959154-105] Pritchett 1959, p. 154.

[110] The United States National Archives Rotunda |The 360 NARA Rotunda Tour stands the visitor in the center, allows zoom in, click and drag to look at the inlaid marble floor and ornate ceiling.

[Wood-111] Wood, Gordon S., Dusting off the Declaration, The New York Review of Books, Aug 14, 1997

[FOOTNOTELevinson1987115-112] Levinson 1987, p. 115.

[FOOTNOTELevinson1987118-113] Levinson 1987, p. 118.

[FOOTNOTELevinson1987119-114] Levinson 1987, p. 119.

[autogenerated1-115] Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEBillias2009xi–xv-116] Billias 2009, xi–xv.

[FOOTNOTEFarber20033-117] Farber 2003, p. 3.

[FOOTNOTEFarber2003198-118] Farber 2003, p. 198.

[FOOTNOTEStacy2003436-120] Stacy 2003, p. 436.

[FOOTNOTEMalcolm1920109-122] Malcolm 1920, p. 109.

[FOOTNOTEQuingYu1988193-124] QuingYu 1988, p. 193.

[transl1-126] "International Judicial Relations — Translated Material". Fjc.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[127] The Federal Judicial Center, viewed 07/27/2011.

[128] International Constitutional Law Project, viewed 07/27/2011.

[129] Search Results - united states constitution

[130] University of Chicago Library, viewed 07/27/2011.

[131] Constitution Finder, viewed 07/27/2011.

[132] "SSRN-The Constitution of the United States in Spanish: A Service for the American People (La Constitucion de los Estados Unidos en Espanol: Un Servicio para el Pueblo Americano) by James Ming Chen". Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[133] "Alphabooks". Alphabooks.vn. Retrieved 2009-05-04. ^{[dead link]}

[134] ttp://www.jpfo.org/pdf/bor-Hawaiian.pdf

[135] ttp://elizabethclaire.com/store/media/general/free-download/US-Constitution-in-Simple-English.pdf

[136] "Arabic-Constitution-2" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[137] "دستور الولايات المتحدة الأميركية - دستور الولايات المتحدة الأميركية". America.gov. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[138] "The Constitution Papers CD. Service of Linguistics Technology" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-10-08.

[139] "Simplified Chinese translation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[140] "Constitution of the United States (1787)". Usinfo.org. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[141] Theusa.nl Template:Nl icon

[142] "French translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[143] "German Constitution 8-19" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[144] "Verfassung" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[145] "U.S. Constitution". Israel.usembassy.gov. Retrieved 2011-08-02.^{[dead link]}

[146] "Hungarian translation of the U.S. Constitution". Hungarian.hungary.usembassy.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[147] "Italian translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[148] "Japanese translation of the U.S. Constitution". Aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov. 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[149] "Korean translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[150] "Portuguese translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[151] "Russian translation of the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[152] Slovakia.usembassy.gov^{[dead link]}

[153] "Spanish translation of the U.S. Constitution". Cato.org. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[154] "United States of America: Constitución de 1787 en español". Pdba.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 2009-05-04.

[155] "Constitución de los Estados Unidos de América — The U.S. Constitution Online". USConstitution.net. 2010-01-24. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

[156] Kyiv.usembassy.gov^{[dead link]}

[twsSEPnn876-157] By Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). "An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[twsSEPnn90-158] Larry J. Sabato interviewed by Policy Today's Dan Schwartz (18 October 2007). "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". Policy Today. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[159] Labunski, Richard. The Second Constitutional Convention: How the American People Can Take Back Their Government (2000) ISBN 0-9677498-7-5, p.6.

[twsNovQ11-160] Alesh Houdek (Nov 16 2011). "Has a Harvard Professor Mapped Out the Next Step for Occupy Wall Street?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2011-011-17. Lawrence Lessig's call for state-based activism on behalf of a Constitutional Convention could provide the uprooted movement with a political project for winter {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[twsSEPnn81-161] Reviewed by Robert Justin Lipkin (January, 2007). "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How the People Can Correct It)". Widener University School of Law. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[twsSEPnn93-162] "Popular vote, Electoral College vote at odds?". USA Today. November 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[tws82-163] Levinson, Sanford (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-19-530751-1.

[twsSEPnn84-164] Randall Kennedy (May 12, 2008). "Books: Randall Kennedy". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[twsSEPnn88-165] Nora Krug (reviewer) (March 23, 2008). "Radical Re-readings -- Our Undemocratic Constition: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It) by Sanford Levinson". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[twsSEPnnppoi-166] Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). "Toward a More Democratic Congress? Our Imperfect Democratic Constitution: The Critics Examined". Boston University Law Review. 89. Boston University Law Review: 609–628. Retrieved 2009-09-20.^{[dead link]}

[twsSEPnn2e4rf-167] Robert A. Dahl (February 11, 2002). "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?". Yale University Press. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[twsSEPnn86-168] "Professor Stanford Levinson Proposes a New Constitutional Convention". Colorado Law -- Univ. of Colorado at Boulder. January 25, 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-20.

[1]

[a]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[b]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[c]

[45]

[46]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[47]

[h]

[i]

[48]

[49]

[j]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[k]

[54]

[l]

[m]

[n]

[o]

[p]

[q]

[r]

[55]

[56]

[s]

[t]

[57]

[u]

[v]

[w]

[x]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[y]

[z]

[63]

[aa]

[64]

[ab]

[ac]

[66]

[62]

[67]

[ad]

[68]

[69]

[ae]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[af]

[ag]

[ah]

@@ Line 839: / Line 839: @@
 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"==
+==Civic religion==
+{{Main|United States Constitution as a civic religion}}
-The [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]] preserves and displays the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These texts are enshrined in massive, bronze-framed, bulletproof, moisture-controlled glass containers vacuum-sealed in a cathedral-like Rotunda by day, in multi-ton bomb-proof vaults by night.<ref name="Wood"> Wood, Gordon S., [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/aug/14/dusting-off-the-declaration/ Dusting off the Declaration], The New York Review of Books, Aug 14, 1997</ref> The ‘Charters of Freedom’ are flanked by [[Barry Faulkner]]’s two grand murals, one featuring Jefferson amidst the Continental Congress, the other centering on Madison at the Constitutional Convention. Alongside the Charters of Freedom is a dual display of the "Formation of the Union", which is documents related to the evolution of the U.S. government from 1774 to 1791. These include Articles of Association (1774), Articles of Confederation (1778), Treaty of Paris (1783) and Washington’s Inaugural Address (1789).<ref name="autogenerated1">National Park Service, [http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/constitution/history.htm Signers of the Constitution: Text and History] Books on line series, viewed September 18, 2011.</ref> The Constitution has a past, and it is also living in a way.
-While political scientists, sociologists, and legal scholars study the Constitution and how it is used in American society, on the other hand, historians are concerned with putting themselves back into a time and place, in context. It would be anachronistic for them to look at the documents of the "Charters of Freedom" and see America’s modern "civic religion" because of "how much Americans have transformed very secular and temporal documents into sacred scriptures".<ref name="Wood"/> The whole business of erecting a shrine for the worship of the Declaration of Independence strikes some academic critics looking from point of view of the 1776 or 1789 America as "idolatrous, and also curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution." It was suspicious of religious iconographic practices. At the beginning, in 1776, it was not meant to be that at all.<ref> Wood, Gordon S., op.cit., Aug 14, 1997</ref>
-On the 1782 [[Great Seal of the United States]], the date of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginning of the "new American Era" on earth. Though the inscription, ''Novus ordo seclorum'', does not translate from the Latin as "secular", it also does not refer to a new order of heaven. It is a reference to generations of society in the western hemisphere, the millions of generations to come.<ref>[http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html Great Seal] webpage. Viewed August 19, 2011.</ref>
-Even from the vantage point of a new nation only ten to twenty years after the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers themselves differed in their assessments of its significance. Washington in his Farewell Address pled that "the Constitution be sacredly maintained."' He echoed Madison in "The Federalist No. 49", that citizen "veneration" of the Constitution might generate the intellectual stability needed to maintain even the "wisest and freest governments" amidst conflicting loyalties. But there is also a rich tradition of dissent from "Constitution worship". By 1816 Jefferson could write 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 potentially, there could be others, believing as he did that "institutions must advance also".{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=115}}
-===Making a nation===
-American identity has an ideological connection to these "Charters of Freedom". [[Samuel P. Huntington]] discusses common connections for most peoples in nation-states, a national identity as product of common ethnicity, ancestors and experience, common language, culture and religion. The United States has a fate different from "most peoples". American identity is "willed affirmation" of what Huntington refers to as the 'American creed.' The creed is made up of (a) individual rights, (b) majority rule, and (c) a constitutional order of limited government power. American independence from Britain was not based on cultural difference, but on the adoption of principles found in the Declaration. Whittle Johnson in ''The Yale Review'' sees a sort of "covenanting community" of freedom under law, which, "transcending the 'natural' bonds of race, religion and class, itself takes on transcendent importance".{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=118}}
 [[File:ArchivesRotunda.jpg|thumb|right|100|<center>National Archives '''Rotunda'''<br><small>virtual tour online</small><ref>[http://360vr.com/nationalarchives/ The United States National Archives Rotunda |The 360 NARA Rotunda Tour] stands the visitor in the center, allows zoom in, click and drag to look at the inlaid marble floor and ornate ceiling.</ref>]]
+There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the document of the [[United States Constitution]], along with the [[Declaration of Independence]] and the [[Bill of Rights]] as being a cornerstone of a type of civic [[religion]]. There is evidence for this with the prominent enshrining 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 cathedral-like Rotunda by day, in multi-ton bomb-proof vaults by night at the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]].<ref name="Wood"> Wood, Gordon S., [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/aug/14/dusting-off-the-declaration/ Dusting off the Declaration], The New York Review of Books, Aug 14, 1997</ref> The business of erecting a shrine for the worship of the Declaration of Independence strikes some academic critics looking from point of view of the 1776 or 1789 America as "idolatrous, and also curiously at odds with the values of the Revolution." 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 potentially, there could be others, believing as he did that "institutions must advance also".{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=115}} [[Samuel P. Huntington]] discusses common connections for most peoples in nation-states, a national identity as product of common ethnicity, ancestors and experience, common language, culture and religion. The United States has a fate different from "most peoples". according to Huntington, since American identity is "willed affirmation" of what Huntington refers to as the ''American creed'': (a) individual rights (b) majority rule and (c) a constitutional order of limited government power. Whittle Johnson in ''The Yale Review'' sees a sort of "covenanting community" of freedom under law, which, "transcending the 'natural' bonds of race, religion and class, itself takes on transcendent importance".{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=118}} According to this argument, political ideals emphasize a sort of political orthodoxy which enable an ethnic diversity unequaled in Britain, France, Germany or Japan.{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=119}} Veneration of the Constitution was assisted in 1924 when President [[Calvin Coolidge]] dedicated the bronze-and-marble shrine for public display of the Constitution at the main building.<ref name="autogenerated1"/>
-These political ideals, which emphasize political orthodoxy, make it possible for an ethnic diversity unequaled in Britain, France, Germany or Japan. And, lacking the ancestor who may have landed on Plymouth Rock or a distant cousin "purportedly" related to those of 1776, [[Anne Norton]] has explained that it is the only way immigrants can establish a commonality with those who had an ethnic history like those Founding Fathers. That singular commonality has become the criterion for belonging which is almost unique in its openness to strangers.{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=119}}
-The touchstone of becoming a naturalized citizen in the United States is demonstration of an understanding of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One's attachment to the Charters of Freedom is signified by a public oath supporting the Constitution. [[Hans Kohn]] described the United States Constitution as "unlike any other: it represents the lifeblood of the American nation, its supreme symbol and manifestation. It is so intimately welded with the national existence itself that the two have become inseparable." Indeed, abolishing the Constitution in Huntington’s view would abolish the United States, it would "destroy the basis of community, eliminating the nation, [effecting] ... a return to nature."{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=119}}
-As if to emphasize the lack of any alternative "faith" to the American nation, Thomas Grey in his article "The Constitution as scripture", contrasted those traditional societies with divinely appointed rulers enjoying heavenly mandates for social cohesion with that of the United States. He pointed out that Article VI, third clause, requires all political figures, both federal and state, "be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required..." This was a major break not only with past British practice commingling authority of state and religion, but also with that of most American states when the Constitution was written.{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=120}}
-'''Escape clause.''' Whatever the oversights and evils the modern reader may see in the original Constitution, the Declaration that "all men are created equal"—in their rights—informed the Constitution in such a way that [[Frederick Douglass]] in 1860 could label the Constitution, if properly understood, as an antislavery document.<ref name="slavenorth1">Harper, Douglas., [http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm Slavery in the North: Massachusetts]. Viewed September 15, 2011.</ref> He held that "the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by disregarding the plain and common-sense reading to the Constitution itself. [T]he Constitution will afford slavery no protection when it shall cease to be administered by slaveholders," a reference to the Supreme Court majority at the time.<!-- ref name=autogenerated6 -->{{sfn|Levinson|1987|pp=129-130, 133}} With a change of that majority, there was American precedent for judicial activism in Constitutional interpretation, including the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which had ended slavery there in 1783.<ref name="slavenorth1"/>
-Accumulations of Amendments under Article V of the Constitution and judicial review of Congressional and State law have fundamentally altered the relationship between U.S. citizens and their governments. Some scholars refer to the coming of a "second Constitution" with the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]], we are all free, the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth]], we are all citizens, the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth]], men vote, and the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth]], women vote. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted so as to require States to respect citizen rights in the same way that the Constitution has required the Federal government to respect them. So much so, that in 1972, the U.S. Representative from Texas, [[Barbara Jordan]], could affirm, "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total ..."{{sfn|Levinson|1987|pp=129-130, 133}}
-After discussion of the [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]] provision for change in the Constitution as a political stimulus to serious national consensus building, [[Sanford Levinson]] performed a thought experiment which was suggested at the bicentennial celebration of the Constitution in Philadelphia. If one were to sign the Constitution today,<ref>The visitor to the National Archives website today is invited to sign the Constitution online. Viewed September 11, 2011.</ref> whatever our reservations might be, knowing what we do now, and transported back in time to its original shortcomings, great and small, "signing the Constitution commits one not to closure but only to a process of becoming, and to taking responsibility for the political vision toward which I, joined I hope, with others, strive."{{sfn|Levinson|1987|p=144}}
-===The shrine===
-At first, whatever the veneration of the Constitution as a set of first principles might have been, little interest was shown in the parchment object itself. Madison had custody of it as Secretary of State (1801-9) but having left Washington DC, he had lost track of it in the years leading to his death. A publisher had access to it in 1846 for a book on the Constitution. Historian J. Franklin Jameson found the parchment in 1883 folded in a small tin box on the floor of a closet at the State, War and Navy Building. In 1894 State sealed the Declaration and Constitution between two glass plates and kept them in a safe.<ref name="autogenerated1"/>
-The two parchment documents were turned over to the Library of Congress by executive order, and in 1924 President Coolidge dedicated the bronze-and-marble shrine for public display of the Constitution at the main building. The parchments were laid over moisture absorbing cellulose paper, vacuum-sealed between double panes of insulated plate glass, and protected from light by a gelatin film. Although building construction of the Archives Building was completed in 1935, in Dec 1941 they were moved from the Library of Congress until September 1944, stored at the U.S. Bullion Depository, Fort Knox, Kentucky. In 1951 following a study by the National Bureau of Standards to protect from atmosphere, insects, mold and light, the parchments were re-encased with special light filters, inert helium gas and proper humidity. They were transferred to the National Archives in 1952.<ref name="autogenerated1"/>
-The design of the National Archives Building was authorized by Congress as a part of a massive New Deal public building program in the center of Washington DC to beautify the central market area immediately west of the Capitol. (Eastern Market east of the Capitol is still extant.) When [[John Russell Pope]] was added to the Board of Architectural Consultants, his vision brought its location to the foot of Capitol Hill and transformed it into a monumental building.
-Since 1952, the "Charters of Freedom" have been displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building. Visual inspections have been enhanced by electronic imaging. Changes in the cases led to removal from their cases July 2001, preservation treatment by conservators, and installment in new encasements for public display September, 2003.<ref> Since 1987, inspections were enhanced by an electronic imaging monitoring system developed for NARA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. In 1995, conservators noticed changes in the glass encasements of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Glass experts from Libby-Owens-Ford (the original manufacturer of the encasement glass) and the Corning Glass Museum identified signs of deterioration. Both the glass experts and the National Archives Advisory Committee on Preservation recommended that the Charters be re-encased by 2002 for document safety. (NARA website)</ref><ref>National Archives publication, [http://www.archives.gov/about/history/building-an-archives/building.html Archives building history]. Viewed August 19, 2011.</ref>
-The Archives were set up by Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. It keeps 1-3% of government documents to be kept forever. These are over 9 billion text records, 20 million photographs, 7 million maps, charts, and architectural drawings and over 365,000 reels of film. The monumental Archives Building was inadequate by the 1960s, so new facilities were built in College Park, MD. Work on electronic archives progresses.<ref>Fitzpatrick, Laura., [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900055,00.html A BRIEF HISTORY OF The National Archives], Thursday, May 21, 2009. Viewed August 19, 2011.</ref>
-'''Original Errata.''' During its first century, the parchment "Copy of the Constitution" was not directly viewed for public purposes, and most of the penned copies sent to the states are lost.<ref>National Park Service, [http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/constitution/history.htm Signers of the Constitution: Text and History] Books on line series, viewed September 18, 2011. Although there is a case of textual examination by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and others in 1823 for reference in a political dispute over punctuation due to the many copies and editions available. The Archives also holds an original parchment of the Bill of Rights, "differing only in such details as handwriting, capitalization, and lineation" with those sent out to the states, few of which survive.</ref>
-But on inspection of one of the remaining copies held at the National Archives, there is an apparent spelling error in the original parchment Constitution, in the so-called Export Clause of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 10: Limits on the States|Article 1, Section 10]] on page 2, where the [[possessive pronoun]] ''its'' appears to be spelled with an apostrophe, turning it into ''it's''.<ref name="mis">[http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html Misspellings in the U.S. Constitution]. U.S. Constitution Online.</ref> However, the letters ''t'' and ''s'' are connected, and the mark interpreted as an apostrophe is somewhat inconspicuous; different U.S. government sources have transcribed this phrase with and without the apostrophe.<ref>Transcription using ''it's'' with an apostrophe: [http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html "The United States Constitution"]. [[U.S. House of Representatives]].</ref><ref>Transcription using ''its'' without an apostrophe: [http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm "Constitution of the United States"]. [[U.S. Senate]].</ref>
-The spelling ''Pensylvania'' is used in the list of signatories at the bottom of page 4 of the original document. Elsewhere, in [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 2: House of Representatives|Article 1, Section 2]], the spelling that is usual today, ''Pennsylvania'', is used. However, in the late 18th century, the use of a single ''n'' to spell "Pennsylvania" was common usage — the [[Liberty Bell]]'s inscription, for example, uses a single ''n''.<ref name="mis"/>
 ==Worldwide==

v t e Constitutions of states and dependencies in the Americas
United States and Canada Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America Hispanic North America Northern Caribbean Central America South America
Sovereign states	Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Bahamas Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Trinidad and Tobago United States Uruguay Venezuela
Dependencies and other territories	Anguilla Aruba Bermuda Bonaire British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Curaçao Falkland Islands French Guiana Greenland Guadeloupe Martinique Montserrat Puerto Rico Saba Saint Barthélemy Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Sint Eustatius Sint Maarten South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Turks and Caicos Islands U.S. Virgin Islands

Revision as of 02:19, 22 December 2011

History

First government

Philadelphia Convention

Drafting the Constitution

Ratification

Adoption and beginning

Historical influences

Fundamental law

Native Americans

Bills of rights before

Original text

Authority and purpose

National government

Legislature

Executive

Judiciary

Federal relationships

The States

Amendments

Central government

Ratification

The Amendments

Procedure

Successful

"Bill of Rights"

Individual rights

Trial and sentencing

Congress nor States

Subsequent

Citizen rights

Three branches

States and abuses

Unratified

One remaining

Abandoned

Quit by practice

Quit by policy

Time ran out

Judicial review

Scope and theory

Establishment

Self-restraint

Separation of powers

Subsequent Courts

Civic religion

Worldwide

National constitutions

Translations

Commemoratives

Criticism

See also

Notes

Citations

References

Further reading

External links