Ch 3 Sec 3

Congress sets the rules

In addition to deciding which ratification method will be used, Congress decides how much time the states will have to ratify an amendment. In modern times, congress has set the limit at seven years. Congress can put the time limit either in the text of the amendment or in legislation that accompanies the amendment. Placing a time limit can alter the fate of an amendment.

Changing court rulings

Social and political conditions of the times often affect Court interpretations of the constitution. The Supreme Court has sometimes ruled that the Constitution means one thing and then, years later, reversed itself. In 1896, for example, the Court ruled that separate public facilities for African Americans were constitutional as long as those facilities were equal. More than a half century later, in 1954, the Curt reversed its position when it decided to outlaw racial segregation in public schools.

Informal Changes

Although formal amendments have played an important role in making it a "living" document, the Constitution has kept pace with the times and has grown as an instrument of government through informal change as well. This process does not involve changes in the working of the Constitution itself. Rather, informal changes occur as government leaders and citizens fill in the details of government on a day to day, year to year basis to suit the needs of the times.

Changes through Practices

Congress has also shaped the Constitution by the way it has used its other powers. Under the constitution, the House may impeach federal officials- including the president- while it is up to the Senate to determine the accused person's guilt or innocence. Article II states that: "The President, Vice-President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The meaning of treason and bribery are clear, but what about "high crimes and misdemeanors"? This is up to Congress to decide. Congress has investigated more than 60 people on impeachment charges, including three presidents- Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.

Changes through the law

Congress has passed laws that have enlarged or clarified many of the Constitution's provisions. The Founders expected congress to do this, and they gave it authority to spell out many details of the national government. Article I, for example, gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes." But what does this provision mean? Congress has applied the taxing authority of the Constitution and expanded its meaning by passing complex tax laws that fill many volumes. The same is true of the executive branch that Article II of the Constitution established. Congress has greatly expanded the executive branch by creating the cabinet departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. In Article III, the Founders created "one Supreme Court" and other courts "as the Congress may...establish." congress completed the judicial branch by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789. Over the years, congress has changed the judicial branch many times in response to new conditions. As the nation expanded and the number of court cases increased, Congress created additional federal courts, established new rules of federal court procedure, and provided for court workers such as bailiffs and clerks.

Presidential Succession

In 1841 William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office. As provided in the constitution, Vice President John Tyler assumed the powers of president. But did Tyler actually become president, or would he merely act as president until the next election? Tyler took the presidential oath of office. Many officials opposed Tyler's interpretation of the Constitution, but no one successfully challenged him. Not until 1967, when the Twenty-fifth Amendment clarified presidential succession, was Tyler's precedent formally endorsed in the Constitution.

Foreign Affairs

Modern presidents usually conduct foreign affairs by executive agreement, instead of using the treaty process specified in the Constitution. While a treaty is an agreement between nations, and executive agreement is made directly between the president and the head of state of another country; it does not require Senate approval.

Proposing Amendments

One method of prosing an amendment is by a two-thirds vote of each house of congress. This is the only method that has been used to date. Dozens of resolutions asking for constitutional amendments are introduced in congress each year. In recent years, suggestions have been made to put limits on income taxed, to limit the tenure of Supreme Court justices to 12 years, and to give states complete control of oil deposits within their borders. None have won the necessary two-thirds vote. The other method for proposing amendments is by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of states. This method has never been used, but in recent history it has almost occurred twice. In 1963, states began to petition Congress for a convention to propose an amendment to overturn Supreme court decisions affecting the election of state lawmakers. By 1967, 33 state legislatures, only 1 short of the required two-thirds, had voted for such a convention. Between 1975 and 1991, 32 state legislatures petitioned Congress for a convention to propose an amendment requiring a balanced budget-one in which the federal government's spending never exceeds its income. By 2000 federal revenues exceeded expenses and most Americans lost interest in a balanced budget amendment. The convention method of proposing amendments in controversial, because such a convention is not required to limit itself to a specific amendment. President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s cautioned that a convention for a federal budget amendment might by "completely uncontrollable." Legal scholars warned that such a convention could propose amendments on any subject.

Change through Custom and Usage

The Constitution has been informally enlarged through customs that have developed over time. Political parties are a good example. Te Constitution does not mention political parties, but they began soon after the government was organized and have been an important part of American government sinc then. Today parties help organize government and conduct election. The amendments added to the Constitution and the changes achieved through precedent and practice have created a government that can respond to the conditions and needs of the times. Thus, this short, simple document has continued to serve as the supreme law of the land.

The Amendment Process

The Founders created a constitution that could be adapted to a future they could not foresee. One way the provided for change was to describe how congress and the states could amend the Constitution. As outlined in Article V, amendments may deal with any topic, except that no state can lose equal representation in the Senate without the state's consent. Amendments may be proposed and ratified in two way. Regardless of the proposal and ratification methods used, however, the amendment process illustrated the federal system of American government. Amendments are proposed at a national level, but they are ratified on a state-by-state basis.

Domestic Affairs

The Founders thought the executive branch would be concerned mostly with carrying out law initiated by congress. Yet in this century, presidents have been aggressive in requesting legislation from Congress. These practices have become important precedents for building the power of the president. Today the president plays a far greater role in American government and politics than most of the Founders ever imagined.

Judicial Review

The most important device the Court uses to interpret the Constitution is judicial review. Although the principle of judicial review is well established, people continue to disagree over how the court should use this power. Some advocate judicial restrains; others argue for judicial activism. The philosophy of judicial restraint holds that the Court should avoid taking the initiative on social and political questions. The Court should uphold acts of Congress unless the acts clearly violate a specific provision of the Constitution. In other words, advocates of judicial restraint want the Court to leave the policy making to others. The philosophy of judicial activism, on the other hand, holds that the Court should play a role in shaping nation policies. The Court should apply the Constitution to social and political questions. The Supreme court under chief Justice Earl Warren- from 1953 to 1969- accepted cases involving many controversial issues, particularly civil rights and the rights of the accused. Because the Warren Courts considered an activist court, people today associate judicial activism with civil rights or social issues. History suggests, however, that the justices' activism may justify their individual choices in any area of policy. Thus, judicial activism may mar either a conservative or liberal court. For example, in the 1930s conservative justices frequently took activist positions against government regulation of the economy. Since the 1940s, however, most activist policies have been in support of civil liberties. Political liberals have tended to support activism, while conservatives have argues for judicial restraint.

Amending the Constitution

The nation that the Founders wanted to perfect in 1787 consisted of fewer than 4 million people living in 13 agricultural states along the Atlantic coast of North 'America. More than two centuries late, that same Constitution provides the foundation for governing an industrial and highly technological nation of more than 285 million people in 50 states spread out across the continent and beyond. The priceless heritage of the constitution is its ability to adapt to new conditions while preserving the basic form of American government.

Ratifying Amendments

When an amendment is proposed, Congress chooses on of two methods fro states to approve it. One way is for legislatures in three-fourths of the states to ratify the special ratifying convention. The amendment becomes part of the Constitution when three-fourths of these conventions approve it. If a state rejects an amendment in the state legislature method, lawmakers may later reverse their decision and ratify the amendment. suppose, however, a state legislature approves an amendment and then revokes the ratification. Is this legal? This question arose over the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender. When 5 of the 35 state legislatures that approved the ERA later revoked their ratification, questions arose. Many constitutional scholars contended that the states' revocations were unconstitutional. The courts, however, have never resolved the issue. The other ratification method- by state ratifying conventions- has been used only once. Conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (1919) that banned the sale of alcoholic beverages. Congress let each state legislature determine how the ratifying conventions would be organized and the delegates elected. Delegates in each state ran for election statewide either on a pledge to support the amendments or on a pledge to reject it. Then at each state ratifying convention, the elected delegates voted as they had pledged to do in their election campaigns. In effect, this method gave the people a direct voice in the amending process.