unit 4 4ever

What was the Court's reasoning in Marbury?

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effective. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained" "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?"

What is New York Rifle and Pistol Association inc. V Bruen?

The state of New York requires a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show "proper cause." A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Is there tension between Roe and Jacobsen?

While a right to privacy could apply to vaccines, the impact of mandated vaccination is much less than carrying an unwanted baby to full term. The Court in Roe did not shy away from discussing the serious economic, social, and psychological impacts of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman. The impacts of a vaccination are nothing more than a prick in the arm. For this reason a different balance between the right to privacy and the state interest of public health is warranted. Putting others at risk by not getting vaccinated is affecting others more so than getting an abortion, which only affects the person recieving the procedure.

How do representatives know what constituents want?

Case work Write legislation/support legislation after people reach out to them Town halls-- go to district where there is a forum and constituents can go talk to congress people Writing letters

How do members of congress serve their constituents?

Congress people communicate with constituents through letters, newsletters, media appearances, websites, blogs, and town hall meetings. They also have staff who do casework, which helps constituents to solve problems they face with the national government. For example, this could help with dealing with agencies. Constituents who have benefited from casework are more likely to have a positive view of a representative and then vote for them despite if they disagree with the representative's stance on certain issues. Congress people write and support legislation after constituents reach out to them about legislation that serves their interests.

How is gerrymandering a product of political polarization?

District lines are drawn to achieve favorable political results for one political party.

How does Congress use its power to investigate?

A critical application of investigation involves Congress investigating how proposed legislation could solve problems faced by the country. Congress uses its power to investigate as part of their power to impeach. Any house member can initiate impeachment proceedings. An example of congress using its investigative powers is the bipartisan Select Committee established to investigate the January 6th attack.

What are some more examples of political compromise?

A recent example of political compromise is the Respect for marriage act which provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. The act protects Americans' religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the mission for legislation to protect marriage equality. Another example is the Infrastructure investment and jobs act, and the civil rights act of 1964 The Americans with disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by employers, governments, or public accommodations. The act had support from both parties, but several congres people did not want to include protections for people with AIDS, they formed a compromise called the Hatch Amendment, which didn't specifically target people with AIDS.

18th amendment

After one year from the ratifi cation of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial offi cers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, [being twenty-one years of age,]* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any offi ce, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an offi cer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial offi cer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where do members of congress get ideas and information when deciding what bills to support?

American legislative exchange council (ALEC), lobbying organization (conservative), sends legislative ideas and model bills to congress and state legislatures Lobbying is protected by the constitution through the 1st amendment and many people believe congress people rely on lobbyists to bring them. Lobbyists have expertise, however, they have clients that have specific goals, rather than using the statesman approach. If everyone is complaining about something then congress people can see issues clearer this is seen as grassroots influence resulting in legislation Political orgs/non-profits like ACLU Lawyer and constituent calls/email/mail For example, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act, is a United States legislative proposal to grant temporary conditional residency, with the right to work, to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as minors was brought to Dick Durbin by constituents but yet to be passed Congress may get ideas from the executive branch like President Biren bringing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The president will bring a bill but can't introduce a bill, like in parliament, they can take it to members of congress of their party

What is incorporation?

Answer: Incorporation is the procedure by which the provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court uses a doctrine of selective incorporation, meaning they incorporate provisions on a case-by-case basis. The Court only incorporates rights which they deem to be "fundamental". Subquestion: What provisions haven't been incorporated? Answers: Person 1: The 3rd amendment Person 2: The 7th amendment Person 3: The right to grand jury indictment in the 5th amendment Person 4: The right to have a jury selected in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed in the 6th amendment Person 5: The 9th and 10th amendments -The incorporation doctrine is necessary because the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments.

What is Originalism?

Answer: Originalism is a concept that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". "The Constitution should be followed according to its language and interpreted for its literal meaning." Pro: Justices aren't making new laws which encourage legislatures to change original law. Con: founders all had different intentions, who are the founders? RE: locks us into the past and the world has changed a lot. -Originalists believe that decisions should be made based on the literal definition of the text. Originalist judges rely on the actual words and language being used in the Constitution. -Difference between originalism and textualism: Originalism is original intent while textualism is focusing on the textual language with no other factors included. Justice example: The origins of constitutional "originalism" lie in conservative political resistance to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that found state-mandated racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. Segregationist and Senator Sam Ervin was an early proponent of originalism as he used the theory to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s. Justice Scalia used Orginialist thinking when deciding Heller v DC, in which the Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a "militia" is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment.

What factors determine a landmark case?

Answer: The criteria for what makes a Supreme Court decision a landmark decision is the discussion regarding fundamental rights, amount of reliance, and if it establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that establishes new case law on a particular issue. Answer 2: Reliance on Precedent includes societal reliance, economic reliance, and governmental reliance. A recent example of the Supreme Court considering economic reliance when determining whether to overrule precedent is Janus, in which the Supreme Court overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and determined that laws that require public employees to pay "fair share" fees to the union designated to represent their bargaining unit, even if the employees are not members of the union, violated the First Amendment by compelling speech on matters of public concern. Answer 3: A prominent example of societal reliance is the Court's decision in Casey, in which the plurality opinion stated that "for two decades ... people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." The plurality indicated that societal reliance on Roe required retention of its central holding, arguing that the "ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Answer 4: Government reliance has been implicated in some of the Court's most critical, long-standing precedents of major economic importance, such as decisions that adopted a broad view of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and thereby established the foundation for the modern administrative state and the Court's 1870 decision in Knox v. Lee, which established the constitutionality of Congress authorizing the issuance of paper money as legal tender The court did not overrule Roe v Wade because of precedent, which they discussed in Planned Parenthood v Casey

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the length of terms of the house of representatives and the British parliament?

Because members of the house of representatives have a two year term, they are essentially campaigning the entire time. They spend 30-40% of their time fundraising and are required to leave congress to go to call centers. It is hard for people to pay attention to elections at different times, studies have shown that people are more likely to vote if elections happen at the same time, as opposed to having a midterm election. Short terms make it hard to follow through on policy and make long term policy. With midterms the balance in congress changes frequently which could put limits on a bad president

What amendments came after supreme court cases to reverse them?

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) - 11th amendment -The Court held that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - 13th and 14th amendment -The majority held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves," whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Minor v. Happersett (1875) - 19th amendment' (1919) -held that, while women are no less citizens than men are, citizenship does not confer a right to vote, and therefore state laws barring women from voting are constitutionally valid. Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) - 26th amendment -held that the United States Congress could set voting age requirements for federal elections but not for local or state elections. Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) - 16th amendment - held that the Act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds; this was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states - violation of article 1 section 9 which prohibited direct taxation Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) - 24th amendment -upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.

How has congress acted to protect rights

Congress can pass legislation to protect individual rights, especially under their authorities under the enforcement clauses that many amendments. For example in 1965 congress used their authority under the 15th amendment enforcement clause to protect the right to vote with the voting rights act of 1965. The house has passed the women's health protection act of 2021, which would legalize abortion nationwide if

Reasons to expand the court

Congress hasn't changed the court's size (9) since 1869 Only helps party in power, in the short term Opens the door for even more political manipulation Adding more external checks on the supreme court would only encourage more partisanship - the root issue is the dysfunction in congress. Make the constitution more amendable

When has the supreme court overruled itself?

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by Brown v Board of Education - held that separate but equal was unconstitutional Minersville School District v. Gobitis overturned by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette... court asked for it to be overturned West Coast Hotel v. Parrish held that the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutional which overruled Adkins v. Children's Hospital, where the court had struck down a minimum wage law for working women.

What solutions are there to political polarization?

Constitutional amendments to overrule Citizens United v. FEC Money may tip the scales in favor of corporate interests and the whims of the wealthy, but that doesn't always benefit the extremes. Putting more restrictions on donations would make elections a better representation of the will of the people. I would propose a top-four system, like Alaska is implementing. In top-four primaries, many candidates will advance to the general election reducing the impact of primaries and allowing candidates to distinguish themselves by policies than being voted for solely because of party affiliation. Civic education plays a large role in allowing people to have an objective view on partisan politics and view issues from both sides. Similarly, people should view media from both sides to gain a bipartisan understanding of each issue. A ranked voting system would increase how closely congress and the president reflect the interests of the people, and would encourage more moderate and third party candidates, reducing polarization.

8th amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Positives of political parties?

Holds representatives accountable, party identity helps you know who to throw out or blame Political parties created democracy and that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties- E.E. Schattschneider Political parties foster equal participation in government by providing a mechanism by which ordinary Americans can become officeholders, and not just celebrities, the rich, and relatives of politicians. Party affiliation also operates as a "brand name." It provides a very inexpensive way for voters to infer a great deal based upon assumptions about what a typical Democrat or Republican is like

Do you support the filibuster?

For the filibuster - The filibuster is a necessary protection against party tyranny in the senate. The filibuster commands compromise between the two parties in the senate, amplifying both sides of the argument and ensuring that everyone's voices are heard. Without the filibuster there would be rapid changes in legislation, which would be very unstable and would make it difficult for people to adjust. It dilutes bills and weakens the original intent. In the Civil Rights of 1964 the bill wasn't nearly as strong as it was intended to be because they needed to gain the support of southern democrats. The filibuster often stops bills from being passed entirely, like in ... (example of bill that wasn't passed due to the filibuster)

Would you change the supreme court?

If the supreme court was acting more as it was intended by solely interpreting, and was exercising judicial restraint, the current checks would be sufficient. They did not exercise this restraint in Roe v. Wade, when they found rights in penumbras, then later in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization took these away, leaving the healthcare rights of people across the US. to the states. As Former Associate Justice Breyer has argued, I would propose 18-year term limits to the supreme court so appointments are staggered and every 2 years a new justice is appointed, giving each president the opportunity to appoint the same number of justices, therefore reducing partisanship. Additionally, this lowers the ability for justices to retire strategically. Making amendments easier to pass would make the check of amending the constitution more viable, taking away the supreme court's effective power of having the final say in constitutional disputes. In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Company, Former Associate Justice Louis Brandeis said "in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier decisions," emphasizing the inability of the legislative branch to pass amendments. I would propose that lowering the requirement of ¾ of states to approve an amendment to the constitution as laid out in article 5, to ⅗ and lowering the amount needed for proposing amendments to ½ of the states would make amending the constitution a more accessible tool for the people to change a supreme court ruling. I am hesitant to add more oversight onto the supreme court in these ways. By further restricting the supreme court to counteract partisanship, we would in a way be accepting the supreme court as a political institution. We would be allowing justices to be as partisan as they want, with the expectation the checks will hinder the effects of the partisanship.

When has congress "fought back" on supreme court decisions?

In 2007 the Supreme Court decided the case Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which strictly limited the amount of time a person could sue their employer for discriminatory payment practices under title 7 of the Civil rights act of 1964 to 180 days after the payments begin. Later, in 2009, congress amended the Civil rights act in a federal statute called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which clarified that the 180 day limit to file a claim of discrimination resets after every discriminatory paycheck. More recently, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act in response to threatening actions in a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in Dobbs v. Jackson. In the opinion of Justice Thomas suggested that the court should also revisit its past substantive due process cases such as Obergefell v Hodges, Griswold v Connecticut, and Lawrence v Texas. Many members of the public worried that they might lose their right to marry who they want, and congress acted and passed the Respect for Marriage Act which requires all states to respect marriages made in another state. Religious Freedom Restoration Act after Employment Division v. Smith - after the supreme court ruled against Many civil rights cases decided in the late 1800s discriminated against people due to race. For example, Plessy v. ferguson. Then Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination at public accommodations. Then the Court held in Heart of Atlanta Motel inc. v. US, exercises Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation and they struck down a statute that said that business open to the public could not discriminate against people due to race Then, In 1964 the congress passed the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination at public accommodations and says they have the power under the commerce clause "interstate commerce," restaurants, hotels

What is Obergefell v. Hodges?

In Obergefell, the Court established that states must issue marriage liscenses to same-sex couples. Marriage is a fundamental right. State laws restricting same-sex marriage violate both the equal protection clause, and the due process clasue of the 14th amendment. Baker v. Nelson was overturned.

6th amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

25th amendment

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

26th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

7th amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law

What is Textualism?

Interpretation of the law should be interpreted by considering only the words used in the law or document as they are commonly understood, no consideration is given to non textual sources -More info: Textualists do not, generally, accept the authority of the Courts to "refine" statutes. -Positives of Textualism: The Constitution is considered as the framework of our government; Since it is so crucial to our government, each and every word must be interpreted carefully. Textualism is a method of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is a legal principle where a judge attempts to understand and apply legislation to a certain case. -Negatives of Textualism: Locks us into the past and the world has changed a lot. Some terms in the Constitution are not defined and this requires some interpretation. The text It allows the judge to interpret the text which may cause them to put their own view on what they are interpreting like any normal person would, contradicting the purpose entirely. In the 1989 case Blanchard v. Bergeron, Justice Scalia used a textualist analysis by challenging the Supreme Court's reliance on legislative history, but primarily on the ground that legislative reports are an unreliable guide to legislative intent.

Why does it matter if a decision is a landmark case? Is there any significance to designating a decision a "landmark" decision?

It matters only when overturning, as it is more difficult under the stare decisis principles to overturn a case that people rely on. All decisions brought to the supreme court are important and controversial enough to have ground to stand on. Unknown decisions can affect as many people as landmark cases do, the difference is popularity. As of now, Roe v Wade has not been overturned due to the amount of reliance. (and other reasons obviously)

Why do individual liberty and the common good matter? (According to constitution)

It's in the Preamble of 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 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." Levels of scrutiny, derived from Carolorne Products, show that the Court cares about the common good. The Court usually defers to the legislature (i.e the common good) unless the law targets discrete and insular minorities.

did the founders intend the Court to have the power of judicial review?

Judicial review is not laid out explicitly in the Constitution. The framers agreed that there should be a check on the legislature, but they disagreed on whether that should come from the Executive or the Judiciary. Some delegates to the constitutional convention, like James Madison and Gouverneur Morris, believed that the Court should not be forced to uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws. Some, like Elbridge Gerry, disapproved, seeing it as putting judges in the place of legislators In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote the judicial review was absolutely necessary to keep congress' limited powers in article I section 8 limited. This was the reasoning that Justice Marshall more-or-less echoed in Marbury v. Madison. It's also worth noting that in Federalist 78, Hamilton said that laws would only be stuck down if they presented an "irreconcilable variance" from the constitution, this is not really what we see today.

What are the penumbras in the Bill of Rights that were used to protect privacy in Griswold?

Justice Douglas, who wrote the opinion, found a penumbra in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments.

What is Rucho v Common Cause

Landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the remit of these courts

What does Obergefell v Hodges entail?

Landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Lochner v New York

Landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a New York state law setting maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lochner was overturned in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

What is the 2021 texas abortion law?

Lexi : The new law passed in the state on september 1st 2021, makes an abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected from the fetus (around 6 weeks, before many women even know they are pregant.) Teddy: The new Texas law (S.B.8) also has an unusual enforcement mechanism. Instead of the state getting involved, it empowers ordinary citizens to sue anyone, except the patient, performing or aiding and abetting an abortion. Meaning that doctors, nurses, and even an Uber driver who takes a woman to an abortion clinic could be at risk of a suit. Ellie: The new Texas abortion bill law goes agaist the casey ruling making that states could not deny a abortion prior to viability. Will: The enforcement mechanism of S.B.8 is what's most problematic in his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts said that "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

What are congress's constitutional powers?

Many of congress's powers are enumerated in Article I, section 8, such as the power to borrow money, regulate commerce, and to raise and support armies. Article II, section 2 allows the senate to give advice and consent to the presidents when appointing judges. Article III gives congress complete jurisdiction over the supreme court. An implied power of the constitution is the power to investigate. They have conducted hundreds of investigations since 1792. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments give congress enforcement powers and the 16th gives congress power to lay and collect income taxes.

13th amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

27th amendment

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

22nd amendment

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

5th amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Is the court working as intended?

No, appointments are being done for explicitly political reasons, and each president appoints justices with their political agenda at the forefront. Presidents will be inclined to select a nominee whose political or ideological views appear compatible with their own. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake. The lack of restrictions on the supreme court stems from the dysfunction of congress and the political polarization that makes it harder for legislation to be passed. Congress's inability to pass constitutional amendments gives the supreme court too much power because there are not current adaptations and the court is left to find implied rights and use constitutional penumbras. The court is the sole constitutional authority, leaving them to create law. No, the checks of judicial impeachments and constitutional amendments aren't being utilized as the framers intended. In Federalist 81, Hamilton states that if the supreme court starts to encroach on Congress's powers, judicial impeachment is a valid tool against this threat.

Does the supreme court listen to public opinions?

No, the framers believed the protection of minority rights should never be subject to the public sentiment. So, it was very important for the framers to establish an independent judiciary. However an example of this divide being breached is when Reverend Schenck who used to lead an evangelical anti-abortion nonprofit in Washington posed allegations against Justice Alito being influenced by an anti-abortion organization in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on contraception and religious liberty. Schenck said he worked for years to exploit the court's permeability. He gained access through faith, through favors traded with gatekeepers and through wealthy donors to his organization. The supreme court is not subject to elections or necessity to gain constituent approval, therefore they can rule based on the constitution rather than public opinion. Less than half of the public approves of the supreme court, suggesting that the court is not meant to seek public approval.

What characteristics should justices of the supreme court have? Why are these important?

Non-partisan and Fidelity to the law and constitution Move to applying ethical standards to the justices-- this is a change from history, talk about proposals of a code of conduct: pro Diversity: six members of the supreme are catholic and catholics are only X percent of the population and 88% percent of the court went to an Ivy League school An education and career which are related to the duties of the supreme court. Person 1: Justices should have a consistent judicial philosophy. Justices should adhere to their philosophy even if it means making a decision that goes against their personal beliefs. (Heller v. D.C. is an example of Justice Scalia NOT doing this) Person 2: Justices should be institutionalists, meaning they should take the legitimacy of the court into account when making decisions.

What methods are used to interpret law?

One form of interpretation is textualism which is looking strictly at the text of the constitution, yet still interpreting the context of the meaning. Textualism is often used by Justices Barrett and Gorsuch. Another form of interpretation is originalism which is looking at what the original intent of the founders was and interpreting the law the way the founders intended. Justices who claim to interpret through the originalist viewpoint are: Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. (the words of the constitution mean exactly what they meant when they were written, no room for modern interpretation). Pragmatism: Takes into consideration how the ruling will impact the country. Value rulings that maintain a stable government rather than one that is strictly "right" on originalist terms. This has been used by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer. It's best at adapting the constitution to modern times, but it requires the most discretion by the judges, which lessens the importance of the constitution. Strict Constructionism, is simply just looking at every word and it has been used by Justices Scalia, Burger, and Rehnquist. Living constitution?? Fundamental Principles, Obergefell v. Hodges, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org

What are Penumbras?

Penumbras are the implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule. The term penumbra is used in a legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government. Penumbra doctrine is used to represent implied powers that arise from a specific rule, and extend the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

What is a fundamental right?

Person 1 (Will): In Palko v. Connecticut the Court has described fundamental rights as "implicit in a scheme of ordered liberty" and "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people". They do not need to be enumerated in the text of the Constitution. Person 2 (Ted): Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under substantive Due Process. Person 3 (Lexi): Some examples of fundamental rights that aren't enumerated in the constitution are marriage, right to privacy, contraception, interstate travel, procreation, and custody of one's child. The most well known case that discussed a non enumerated fundamental right is Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court decided The United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Person 4: Laws that burden fundamental rights (or discriminate based on race or national origin) face strict scrutiny. To be upheld the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. The idea of levels of scrutiny was established in Carolene Products v. United States

What factors does the court consider when deciding whether to overturn a case

Person 1 (Will): In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court laid out four factors that should be considered in stare decisis analysis. One factor is whether the standard created by the case in question is workable. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, the court discussed this factor of stare decisis by overruling the 1986 case Davis v. Bandemer, a partisan gerrymandering case, because it didn't create a workable standard. Person 2 (Ellie): The second factor is whether people rely on the case in a way that would cause "special hardship" if the case were overturned. In Roe v Wade, the court discussed this factor of stare decisis when stating that women in the US rely on abortion if faced with an unplanned/unexpected pregnany. Person 3 (Teddy): The third factor is whether the case is still consistent with the Court's current jurisprudence. Has it been left behind? Person 4 (Lexi): The final factor is whether the facts of the case have changed or come to be seen very differently. Brown v Board Education used the change in facts factor of stare decisis when overruling Plessy v Furguson. (Ramos v. Louisiana, Kagan's dissent)

24rth amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Where do states get the authority to burden peoples' fundamental rights?

Person 1(Will): The police power is a power that the states hold under the 10th amendment. The police power allows states to make regulations that sometimes burden peoples' rights. There are different categories of the police power. Person 2 (Lexi): The first category of the police power is health and safety. This is the strongest police power interest. For example Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where the court upheld vaccine mandates because they promote health and safety. Person 3 (Ellie): The second category is general welfare. General welfare is the broadest of the categories and the strength of the interest varies greatly from case to case. Person 4 (Teddy): The final category is morals. Morals are the weakest of the categories. In Griswold for example the court struck down Connecticut's contraception law because it served no other purpose than to protect morals.

What do recent decisions about vaccine mandates have to do with the Court's balancing of individual liberty and the common good?

Person 1: Court's reasoning in the two vaccine mandate decisions had to do with the power of the federal government through the administration, and did not have to do with balancing. The Court did NOT reconsider Jacobsen. Person 2: Medicare/Medicaid workers case has a little bit of balancing. Court looked to the hippocratic oath ("do no harm") as an example of why mandate is allowed.

What fundamental rights were established in the reproductive rights cases?

Person 1: Griswold and later Roe established a right to privacy that restrictions on contraception and abortion cannot violate. Person 2: Casey reaffirmed this right to privacy, and also discussed a right to bodily integrity.

What is Stare Decisis?

Person 1: Latin for "to stand by things decided." The doctrine of precedent. Person 2: Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Person 3: According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process."

What is substantive due process?

Person 1: Substantive due process is the doctrine Courts use to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference even when those rights are not listed in the Constitution. Courts protect fundamental rights by relying on the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, which prohibits the government from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Person 2: The idea of substantive due process started in the early 1900's with Lochner v. New York, which established a fundamental right to freedom of contract. The Lochner era was eventually abandoned in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. Nowadays substantive due process is seen as protecting individual rights ( Pierce/Meyer, Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Obergfell...) Person 3: Procedural due process is different. It has three components: notice, opportunity to be heard, a neutral magistrate to be heard in front of Person 4: Since some rights are so fundamental, no amount of procedure can be used to take them away Some rights are so fundamental, no matter how much due process a state gives, those rights cannot be taken away.

Where does substantive due process stop? OR: What is a fundamental right?

Person 1: The Court can't say that just anything is a right secured under the word liberty in the 14th Amendment, only "fundamental rights" qualify. Person 2: The court described fundamental rights in Palko v. Connecticut as "implicit in a scheme of ordered liberty" and "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people". —-We could mention a case in this answer, pierce v society of sisters maybe, it gave parents authority over their children's education as a fundamental right

What does the living document theory entail?

Person 1: The claim that the United States Constitution and other constitutions hold a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. Person 2: -Examples of living document theory in law: One application of the Living Constitution's framework is seen in the Supreme Court's reference to "evolving standards of decency" under the Eighth Amendment, as was seen in the 1958 Supreme Court case of Trop v. Dulles Person 3: -Arguments for living document theory: Interpreting the Constitution in original meaning or intent is unacceptable as a policy matter and so an evolving interpretation is necessary. Another argument is that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Person 4: -Arguments against living document: Opponents argue that the Constitution should be changed by an amendment process because allowing judges to change the Constitution's meaning undermines democracy. Another argument against the Living Constitution is that legislative action (rather than judicial decisions) better represents the will of the people in the United States in a constitutional republic since periodic elections allow individuals to vote on who will represent them in the United States Congress. Members of Congress should (in theory) be responsive to the views of their constituents. That argument relies partly upon the fact that federal judges, who are not elected but appointed by the President, have life tenure and are far less at risk of losing their jobs than members of Congress, who are elected. Person 5: Judge Holmes in Missouri v Holland for living document: "The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago."

What rights do we think should be protected AND what rights do we think should not?

Person 1: The right to vote should be protected Person 2: The right to property should be protected Person 3: The right to a speedy trial should be protected Person 4: The right to work should not be protected as it implicates another person?? original v Appellate jurisdiction... marbury v madison -how can the president check the supreme court -Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer -what rights do we think should be protected v not -federalist 78 -lesson 25 in textbook -judiciary- weakest branch? "Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. It was created to be the weakest of all three branches of government. Each branch has its own characteristics, but what distinguishes this branch from the other two is that Judiciary is passive. It cannot act until someone brings a case in front of them. Even if some law or act is unconstitutional, courts are powerless to do anything on their own. Contrary to Judiciary, other two branches are active, and have power to attack other subjects."

19th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Did the Founders intend for the courts to hold the power of judicial review?

Person 1: This is unclear due to article 3 because it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution. Person 2:Yes even though it is not directly provided in the Constitution, in Federalist 78 Hamilton said that 'in a government of limited powers it is crucial that the court be able to check the legislature and keep them within those powers. Person 3: This is unclear in the Constitution because the Anti-Federalist were strongly against Judicial review and opted for smaller forms of government (taking power from the federal government.) Person 4: Marbury v. Madison announced the power of judicial review...

What checks exist on the power of the supreme court?

Presidential Appointments: presidents influence future supreme court decisions through their nominees to the court. Executive enforcement: Presidents and the administrative agency are responsible for enforcing the court's decisions. Presidents occasionally have refused or been reluctant to follow a supreme Court decision. Congressional Powers: congress determines the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction in Article III, section 2. Congress can threaten to use these powers in response to supreme court decisions they disagree with. If a supreme court declares a congressional statute unconstitutional, congress can pass the statute in another form overruling the court. Federalism: states are responsible for implementing supreme court decisions. Sometimes states don't enforce these decisions. For example, even sixty years after the Supreme court ordered public school desegregation some states found ways to avoid following. Expansion of court, has been done, what has currently been proposed, Gerald Nadler, Judiciary Act of 2021 Article II, section 2 gives the executive, with advice and consent of the Senate, the power to appoint judges to the court, ensuring the executive and legislative branches agree on the composition of the court.

Should representatives be solely concerned with reelection?

Re-elections hold representatives accountable for their actions and ability to serve the people. Joseph Schlesinger in his book Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States, says "no more irresponsible government is imaginable than one of high minded men unconcerned for their political fortunes." Alternatively, in the article Unfastening the Electoral Connection, it is noted "that elections apparently discourage members from having a focused and potentially successful legislative agenda." In November of 1998, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but six were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 98% success rate. U.S. Senators seeking reelection were only slightly less fortunate-slightly less than 90% of the Senate incumbents who sought reelection in 1996 held on to their seats. Research on the term limits imposed by House Republicans on their committee chairs, for example, suggests that chairs become more effective the longer they serve in those leadership positions.

Kevin McCarthy house drama

Representative Kevin McCarthy failed to get a majority of the House to vote for him as Speaker of the House. This is the first time this has happened in 100 years. This prevents the house from proceeding with any other business until the Speaker is chosen. On Sunday before the vote, McCarthy released his proposed changes to the House Rules which included a modification to the motion to vacate. The old rule required a majority of Republicans to vote to bring forward the motion, but the modified rule needs only 5 people. McCarthy also promised to set up a select committee on the weaponization of government if elected, along with removing metal detectors that were installed after Jan 6, in order to appease more conservative republicans. One major holdup in confirming Rep. McCarthy as speaker of the house is the Never Kevin Caucus, a group of five republican members who have agreed to never vote for McCarthy. This poses a serious issue as McCarthy can only afford to lose four republican votes and still be elected.

How does the primary system affect polarization?

Results in more polarized candidates - the primaries ensure that each candidate in the general election is the one that best catered to their party, and not the one that will compromise. The only people who can vote in primaries are members of the party, who will be very different ideologically from the public. Additionally, the people who care enough about who represents them in the general election are more likely to have strong opinions about their beliefs States with top 2 primaries: California, Washington, Alaska (top 4), Nebraska (non-partisan affiliated candidates for state legislature elections)

How has the court become more polarized?

Right to privacy became highly politicized - gave power to the supreme court. Similar to Lochner era, liberty of contract was politicized - led to FDR threatening/switch in time Federalist 78- he understands court has authority for judicial review Hamilton was an important actor at new york ratifying convention Debates in the states-- connecticut, oliver ellsworth, pennsylvania-james wilson Anti-federalists- bentley brutus - worried about judicial review if constitution was ratified Article III was almost an afterthought- left a lot up to congress, judiciary act of 1789(consider to be higher law)

15th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What theories of representation guide members of congress?

Statesmen theory of representation(trustee theory): they are interested in the interest of the whole, federalist 10, not just interested in winning or serving a political interest group, this is what the framers/madison would've wanted Examples of statesmen theory: John Mccain (Affordable Care Act), Liz Cheney (Trump Impeachment), Everett Dirksen (Civil Rights Act): sacrificing particular party interests for a crisis/for the best of the nation Delegate theory of representation: they are meant to speak for the people who they represent and what elected them to do

Should supreme court oral arguments be televised? Why or why not?

Supreme court oral arguments should be televised as it would draw more public attention to actions of the supreme court and increase the transparency of the court The importance of the supreme court are it's decisions and televising the oral arguments would distract from that The audio from the oral arguments are already broadcasted and putting video cameras in the supreme court might make the justices play for the cameras Justices may censor themselves Talk about c-span and cameras in congress Committee work isn't televised but it's still a huge function of congress Cameras introduced showboating in front of empty chambers to win points in the minds of the public Does streaming audio have any effect on the court already? Leaks of decisions have had negative effects for the legitimacy of the court (Dobbs, Justice Brennan's private papers)

What are levels of scrutiny?

Teddy- Footnote 4 of Carolene Products v. United States established the levels of scrutiny (laws that impact discrete and insular minorities require higher levels of scrutiny) Ellie- Rational basis: lowest level, rationally related to a legitimate government interest (age, wealth) Lexi : Intermediate security: Narrowly tailored to an important government interest (only gender) Will- Strict scrutiny: Laws that burden fundamental rights or discriminate based on race or national origin face strict scrutiny. To be upheld the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. (LGBTQ+ is in between rational and intermediate) In Korematsu v United States, the court used strict scrutiny to determine that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast secure from invasion. In Craig v Boren, the court discussed intermediate scrutiny to determine that the statute that the drinking age for females should be older than that of males made unconstitutional gender classifications. In Mull v Illinois (1877) the formulation of the rational basis test was created. There, the Supreme Court held that Illinois did not violate the Constitution by establishing maximum rates for grain storage.

What can Congress do when they don't like a SCOTUS decision? OR How can the legislature check the Court?

Teddy: Congress can change the Court's appellate jurisdiction. (Article III Sec 2) Ellie: Congress can amend the Constitution. Using a two thirds majority of state legislatures a joint resolution can be passed amending the constitution. (Article V) Lexi: Congress can choose whether to confirm justices. Or can expand the size of the court, beginning a legal campaign to change the law. Will: Congress can pass a law or change a law if they don't like the way the Court interpreted the statue. Add discussion of Federalism (state/local laws allowing abortion). NAACP campaign to overturn Plessy

16th amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Dred Scott v Sanford

The Court held that people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, were not and could not be citizens of the United States or any state, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them

What's the difference between the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdiction?

The Court's original jurisdiction is very limited and is defined in Article III Section 2 as extending to ambassadors and cases to which a state shall be a party.

23nd amendment

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

12 amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certifi cates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.-]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the offi ce of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

11 amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State

17th amendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifi cations requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fi ll such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fi ll the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Pierce v Society of Sisters

expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties.....

What is the common good?

The common good is widely defined as whatever is beneficial for all or most members of a given community, we think the common good is more complex than that. The best outcome for most people. Current Def: What is shared and beneficial for most members of a given community Ancient Def: "a good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members." - Aristotle In the context of judicial review, the common good could be viewed as any act of a legislature, since this would theoretically represent a majority of people. A key aspect of the common good is that it is not best for everyone in a community. This goes into the idea of "tyranny of the majority". In this situation the Court's role is to prevent tyranny of the majority by balancing the common good against individual rights (usually of those of the minority).

How does a Court determine the common good?

The courts do not get to determine what the common good is, that is reserved to the legislatures. In judicial review cases, the courts can only decide whether the common good interest overly burdens individual rights. The legislature, and to a lesser extent the executive, set public policy and while judges decide cases. But keep in mind that judges do think about the common good when deciding cases. A pragmatist judge, in particular, might ask herself "will my decision in this case (which will become precedent for future cases) encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior? The Court indirectly affects the common good, for example in Rucho v. Common Cause where the Court allowed partisan gerrymandering to continue.

21st amendment

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

9th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Who leads the house and the senate?

The floor leaders are elected by a majority vote of all the senators of their party assembled in a caucus. They are elected for a two-year term at the beginning of each Congress. The majority and minority leaders are the elected spokespersons on the Senate floor for their respective political parties. House Leadership is elected every two years at the beginning of a new Congress. The Speaker of the House is elected by the entire membership of the House. The senates floor majority leader is Charles Schumer and the minority leader is Mitch McConnell The house is led by the speaker of the house: Kevin McCarthy

Won't a pragmatic interpretation of the constitution lead to the constitution changing all the time?

The main safeguard for a pragmatic interpretation is stare decisis, which is the idea that the court should adhere to its previous rulings. [A pragmatist judge takes precedent and the need to adhere to precedent into consideration when deciding cases. Pragmatists look at the consequences of their rulings. If a court flip flops all the time and does not adhere to precedent then one consequence is that we will not know what the law is, we will be unable to conform our behavior to a known standard, and we will lose confidence in the courts. So pragmatists will not lightly change the common law, or overrule prior decisions. And pragmatist judges know that if the outcome of two similar cases is different, then they need to be able to explain their reasoning and how they distinguish the two cases, in order maintain the court's credibility and provide a predictable standard to which we can conform our behavior in the future.]

10 amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

20th amendment

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratifi ed; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

What checks does the supreme court put on itself?

They choose not to decide cases for example there are around 7000 cases surpetitioned and 100-150 cases taken on each year The court avoids political questions in hopes to remain nonpartisan. They will not issue an advisory opinion. Constitutional avoidance by deciding things on statutes/laws They practice judicial restraint by making as little law as possible

How do committees and rules help congress do its work?

They divide up the work so that every representative doesn't have to be knowledgeable in every subject matter. Committee membership enables members to develop specialized knowledge of the matters under their jurisdiction and become experts of their subject matter. Committees monitor on-going governmental operations, identify issues suitable for legislative review, gather and evaluate information, and recommend courses of action to the Senate.

Filibuster

To override a filibuster you need 60 votes in the Senate. A filibuster is an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.

If the constitution can be amended, why do we need a living document?

Very difficult to amend the constitution, the court has a duty to protect people's fundamental rights if the legislature is not. There have been over 11,000 proposed amendments and only 27 passed.

2nd amendment

a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

1st amendment

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

3rd amendment

no solider shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner, to be prescribed by law