Exercise 1

Articles

Article 1 is about the Legislative Branch

Article 2 is about the Executive Branch

Article 3 is about the Judicial Branch

Article 4 is about the States

Article 5 is about amending the Constitution

Article 6 establishes the Constitution and similar documents as the law of the US

Article 7 lays out how the Constitution should be ratified, with nine out of the original thirteen states having to accept the Constitution to pass it

Amendments

The 1st Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, press, and petition

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms

The 3rd Amendment prohibits forced quartering of troops during peacetime

The 4th Amendment requires a warrant to search and seize property

The 5th Amendment creates due process and allows for the protection of property

The 6th Amendment allows for a speedy trial by jury and protects due process

The 7th Amendment allows for a trial by jury in civil cases

The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment

The 9th Amendment protects natural rights

The 10th Amendment limits the power of the federal government

The 11th Amendment protects the state from prosecution

The 12th Amendment changes the election procedures for electing the president

The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and defines the equalities of a citizen

The 15th Amendment prohibits unequal treatment

The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax

The 17th Amendment establishes the direct election of Senators by The People

The 18th Amendment establishes the prohibition of alcohol

The 19th Amendment establishes women’s suffrage

The 20th Amendment changes the start date for Congressmen and the President

The 21st Amendment repeals prohibition

The 22nd Amendment limits presidential terms to two

The 23rd Amendment establishes the representation of Washington DC in the Electoral College

The 24th Amendment prohibits the poll tax

The 25th Amendment establishes the process of the president’s succession

The 26th Amendment creates the 18-year-old voting age

The 27th Amendment prohibits any law that changes the salary of members of Congress until the start of the next terms of office for Representatives

Exercise 2

Marbury v. Madison Background – Marbury was appointed to be Justice of the Peace by John

Adams during the president’s Lame Duck period. Marbury did not receive his commission, which granted him his office

Issue – Whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Decision - Marbury had the right to his commission, but the Supreme Court had no authority to force Madison to give it to him

Importance – Created judicial review

Engle v. VitaleBackground – There was time set aside everyday at school in New York for

personal prayer, but this was seen as not separating church and state Issue – Whether the setting aside for time of a voluntary prayer in school

violates the 1st AmendmentDecision – The Regents of the State of New York violated the 1st Amendment

on the basis that the time for prayer was not separating church and stateImportance – Began the process of separating Church and State in the US

Miranda v. ArizonaBackground – A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Arizona, and

Ernesto Miranda was brought in, identified by the victim, and taken to interrogation. He was not told of his rights to counsel before questioning. Later, a full confession came out of that room. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison

Issue – Is a confession a valid document if obtained without informing the signer of his right to counsel?

Decision – The court overruled his sentence on the grounds that he was not informed of his right to an attorney and to self-incrimination

Importance – Created the Miranda Rights

McCullough v. MarylandBackground – The charter of the First Bank of the US was not renewed by

1811. After the war of 1812, the charter for the Second Bank of the US was created, and the new bank was heavily involved in local banks’ issuance of currency. To stop the federal bank, states like Maryland required a tax of $15,000 from Federal Bank branches, such as the one in Baltimore. McCullough, the cashier at the Baltimore branch of the Federal Bank, refused to pay, and he was fined $25,000.

Issue – Was the Bank of the US constitutional?Decision – Unanimously, the court favored McCullough’s side, saying that the

Federal Bank was an instrument of The People, not the state.Importance - Strengthened the implied powers clause of the Constitution

Lemon v. KurtzmanBackground – Pennsylvania’s 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary

Education Act was brought to attention as it reimbursed nonpublic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material

Issue – Was it constitutional for the state to provide support for schools on a religious basis?

Decision – No, this would violate the separation of church and stateImportance – Created the Lemon Test, three rules for the requirements for

legislation concerning religion

Clinton v. New YorkBackground – President Bill Clinton cancelled a provision, in the Balance

Budget Act of 1997 and in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, in accordance with the Line Item Veto Act. People came forward claiming this act was unconstitutional.

Issue – Was the President’s ability to cancel individual parts of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, constitutional?

Decision – Yes, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must be signed or vetoed in its entirety by the President

Importance – Determined that the President had no authority in the creation of the legislation

Gideon v. WainwrightBackground – A burglary occurred in Panama City, Florida. A witness

reported seeing the burglar, Clarence Gideon. Gideon asked to be represented, but he was denied a lawyer by the State of Florida

Issue - Can the accused by provided counsel if they cannot afford it, no matter what the accusation?

Decision – Yes, state courts are required under the fourteenth amendment to provide counsel if the accused cannot afford it

Importance – This extended the similar requirement that had been set down on federal courts under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Plessy v. FergusonBackground – The state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which

segregated blacks and whites into different train cars. A group of New Orleans residents made a plan to have Plessy (a black man) arrested on the grounds of him sitting in a white car. They did this, and the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that he needed to pay $25. The group worked the issue up to the Supreme Court on the basis that the separation marked blacks as inferior, which is against the Fourteenth Amendment

Issue – Is segregation constitutional?Decision – The court decided in favor of Ferguson, seeing in no way how

Louisiana violated the Fourteenth Amendment.Importance – Upheld that segregation is constitutional as long both receive

equal treatment

Mapp v. OhioBackground – An anonymous tip led police to the house of Dollree Mapp,

where they were expecting to find a suspect in a bombing case and some illegal betting equipment. Instead, Dollree Mapp required a search warrant for the police to enter her house. Some officers left to get a warrant and returned with a piece of paper. The police detained her for belligerence after she took the ‘warrant’ and after pornographic material was found in a suitcase in her house. No warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.

Issue – Did Ohio fail to supply Mapp with her Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

Decision – Mapp’s conviction was overturned, ruling that evidence found during an unconstitutional search and seizure were to be excluded from trials

Importance – Created the Mapp Rule was created which excludes any unconstitutionally obtained evidence from court cases

Brown v. Board of EducationBackground – Eight-year-old African American student Linda Brown was

denied access to the white-only school that was 5 blocks away, and instead assigned to the colored-only school 21 blocks away.

Issue – Was separate really equal?Decision – Unanimously no, the segregation instilled a feeling of inferiority

among African-American students, which harms their learning.Importance – Effectively ended segregation legality in school

Gibbons v. OgdenBackground – A deal negotiated between the partnership of Robert Fulton

and Robert Livingston and the state of New York gave Fulton and Livingston full control over the steam-powered ferryboats of New York. The partnership licensed Aaron Ogden to operate on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. At the same time, Thomas Gibbons made his living off of ferrying passengers from New Jersey to New York City. Gibbons operated under a federally granted license. Ogden asked the New York courts to forbid Gibbons from using the NYC ports

Issue – In accordance with Article 1, Section 8, what was the meaning of the word commerce – whether it was barrels and boxes, or passengers as well?

Decision – Unanimously, the court sided with Gibbons on the grounds that the Federal government has control over interstate commerce

Importance – Effectively established forever that the Federal government has absolute control over interstate and foreign commerce

Exercise 3

1) Summarize how Madison feels about “factions”.

Factions are bad for the American people, and the government is being dragged down because of them. Factions do not act for what is best for The People and do not consider the minority’s opinion.

2) Define faction. If Madison were alive today, what factions would he see?

A faction is a group of people for or against an issue that will have a negative effect on the country or The People. “… Who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion … adverse to the rights of other citizens”.

Such factions can include the Democratic and Republican parties, pro-life vs. pro-choice, pro-gay rights vs. anti-gay rights, and unions.

3) What are two methods of curing the mischief of factions? Would this be possible today?

Two methods would be to remove the causes for the factions and control the effects of the factions. This would be possible, though very hard to do. “… Removing its cause … controlling its effects”.

Neither of these would be possible today. Our instant communication devices would help carry a reaction too rapid to quell. Our diverse population has many different sides to an issue, so any attempt to please one side would distaste another’s.

4) What are two methods of removing the causes? Would this be possible today?

The two methods would be to strip The People of its freedom to form the factions or give everyone the same opinion and side of the issue such that there would be no disgruntlement between two people. “… Destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence … giving to every citizen the same opinions”.

Neither of these would be possible today. Taking away an American’s freedom is something to go to war about for Americans. It is what we founded our country to do. And because of our diverse population, we would never be able to get everyone on the same side of an issue.

5) How does Madison feel about the first remedy? Why?

Taking away The People’s freedom to form factions is worse than having the factions. “… It could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction … which is essential to animal life”.

Doing so would destroy the government’s role in maintaining that a majority of the people are satisfied.

6) How does Madison feel about the second remedy? Why?

Giving everyone the same opinion would be impossible.

As long as people are selfish, they will continue to have different views on issues, and therefore will continue to form factions to help get their point across. “As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other”.

7) What does Madison say about the causes of factions? Is this true today? What does Madison say is source of factions? Is this true today? How should these interests be regulated?

The most prevalent cause for factions is the difference in ideals among people. “A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions”

This is still true today. Political fights between liberals and conservatives persist today.

The source of factions is the “unequal distribution of property”. People always want what others have if they don’t have it.

Although not as prevalent as the other issue, people still want what others have. A good example is the fight for the Holy Land between Arab countries and Israel - the Muslims and Israelites claiming Palestine as their rightful land.

These interests should be regulated with legislation and with government action. “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation”.

8) What will factions do to the good of the whole society?

They will represent what the majority of people want in government. “… And the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail”.

9) How does Madison say that factions can be controlled?

Since factions’ causes cannot be rid of, the only solution would be to minimize the effect of the factions. “The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS”.

10) What will happen when the faction is a minority? What will happen when the faction is a majority?

If the faction is a minority, then the majority-rule that democracy follows will nullify the faction’s influence.

If the faction is a majority, then The People’s rights and freedoms can be taken away. “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens”.

11) What are the two possibilities of solutions?

Protect against factions that believe in something from becoming the majority, or disallowing a faction with a common interest from oppressing the people. “Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression”.

12) Is there a cure in a pure democracy for the mischief of a faction?

There is no cure in a pure democracy. “… A pure democracy … can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of factions”.

13) What promises the cure?

A republic promises the cure. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place … promises the cure for which we are seeking”.

14) How does Republic compare to a democracy? Which is best? Why?

In a republic, a small number of people are elected by the rest of the people to represent them, and a larger population and country size can be represented. “First, the delegation of the government, in the [republic], to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the [republic] may be extended”.

A republic is best.

A republic can most easily and most thoroughly carry out the people’s needs.

16-17) Why do extensive republics provide the best safeguard against factions?

The proportion of representatives to citizens would be more fit for representation, and representatives in a larger republic would require more votes to be elected, thus routing out any bad candidates. “The former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice”.

18) What is the “happy combination” that will cure the problem?

The cure would be to grant the federal government certain powers, but reserve some powers for the state governments. “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”.

19-20) Why will extended republics be able to do better? Why will large republics have an advantage over small ones?

Extended republics will be able to prevent the spread of a faction by downplaying their impact on the voting body. In smaller republics, it is easier for a faction to establish a majority. “The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party”.

21) How will Federalism stop the growth of tyranny?

It will limit the control any one person or group has in government. “The variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source”.