Arguments: Commotion Or Constitution?

Arguments are an integral part of legal discourse, especially when it comes to interpreting and amending the Constitution. The Constitution is a dynamic document that undergoes scrutiny and debate to ensure it upholds the rights of citizens and adapts to changing societal needs. For instance, there have been discussions about whether former President Trump could run for a third term without causing a commotion, with some arguing that there are no credible legal arguments for this. The interpretation of the Constitution is guided by shared rhetorical techniques and commonplaces, with legal professionals employing specific tools and strategies to analyze problems and construct legal arguments.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

The Essential Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches and Writings

$15.96 $16.95

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$39.24 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$79.05 $85

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

Interpreting the Constitution: The Constitution is open to interpretation, with legal disputes arising from differing views

The US Constitution is open to interpretation, and legal disputes often arise from differing views. The Supreme Court has relied on certain "methods" or "modes" of interpretation to determine the meaning of a provision within the Constitution. These modes of interpretation include textualism, originalism, and various rhetorical techniques. Textualism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document, taking into account the context in which the terms appear and how they would have been understood by people at the time of ratification. Proponents of textualism argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views, leading to more predictable and democratic judgments. However, critics argue that textualism does not account for the potential for interpreters to ascribe different meanings to the text based on their backgrounds and that it fails to address fundamental constitutional questions.

Originalism, another mode of interpretation, seeks to interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of its adoption. Scholars and critics argue that it is challenging to determine the original meaning due to conflicting statements, understandings, and gaps in historical sources. As a result, judges may choose an original view that aligns with their political beliefs. Additionally, originalism has been criticized for requiring judges to act as historians rather than decision-makers.

The interpretive process is guided by an attitude of fidelity to the Constitution and a set of rhetorical techniques for analyzing problems and devising legal arguments. These techniques, originating in common law, are still employed by American lawyers today and are characteristic of American constitutional law. They provide tools for analyzing legal problems and generating legal arguments.

The differing views on interpreting the Constitution can lead to legal disputes. For example, disputes may arise between Congress's constitutional authority and that of the executive branch, such as disagreements over the reach of congressional oversight power or the scope of executive privilege. Understanding the various methods of interpretation is essential for Members of Congress to uphold their oath to support the Constitution when performing legislative functions and evaluating executive branch officials' interpretations.

Amendment arguments: Some argue that amendments are unnecessary, while others believe they are crucial for guaranteeing citizens' rights

The interpretation of constitutions and amendments is a complex and often contentious topic, with legal disputes arising from differing interpretations. Amendments are proposed changes to the constitution, and they can be highly influential in shaping the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Some argue that amendments are unnecessary, citing potential disruption to the balance of power and the existing provisions within the constitution. They believe that the constitution, as the supreme law, already provides a robust framework for governing and protecting citizens' rights. In the case of the United States, the Ninth Amendment, for example, addresses rights retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment reinforces states' rights.

However, others argue that amendments are crucial for guaranteeing citizens' rights and ensuring that the constitution remains responsive to societal changes. For instance, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States aims to guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens regardless of sex. While the 14th Amendment grants equal rights to all citizens, it does not explicitly mention women, and the 19th Amendment, while providing equal voting rights, has a limited scope. The ERA seeks to address these gaps by ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the law, regardless of gender.

The interpretation and implementation of amendments can be a lengthy and challenging process. For example, the ERA, first proposed in 1973, has yet to be ratified by the required number of states. This delay highlights the complex nature of constitutional amendments and the potential for legal battles and differing interpretations.

Ultimately, the argument surrounding amendments is a delicate balance between maintaining the stability and integrity of the constitution and adapting it to meet the evolving needs of citizens. While some amendments may be unnecessary or disruptive, others can play a crucial role in safeguarding liberties and ensuring equal rights for all.

Legal arguments: Lawyers use rhetorical techniques to analyse and argue, employing tools like topoi or topics

Legal arguments are an integral part of the legal system, with lawyers employing various rhetorical techniques to analyse and argue their cases effectively. One such technique is the use of topoi or topics, a concept with roots in classical rhetoric. The term topoi, derived from the Greek word for "place" or "turn", was introduced by Aristotle to characterise the "places" where arguments relevant to a given subject could be located. These topoi serve as tools or strategies for argument invention, offering a structured approach to crafting persuasive arguments.

Aristotle categorised topoi into two main types: general (koinoi topoi) and particular (idioi topoi). General topics, or commonplaces, are versatile and can be applied to a wide range of subjects. They include concepts such as part and whole, more and less, opposites, time, definitions, categorisation, cause and effect, and possible and impossible. These broad themes provide a framework for constructing arguments that can be adapted to various contexts.

On the other hand, particular topics, or "private places", are more specialised and apply only to specific disciplines or fields. They are tailored to the unique considerations and nuances of a particular area of study or practice. By using particular topics, lawyers can delve into the specific details and complexities of a legal matter, tailoring their arguments to the unique circumstances of each case.

The use of topoi is not limited to argument invention but also extends to rhetorical analysis. Contemporary rhetoricians have demonstrated the versatility of topoi by employing them "in reverse" to analyse public discourse, literary works, scientific discoveries, and moments of social and political unrest. This analytical application of topoi allows for a deeper understanding of the underlying arguments and their impact on audiences.

In the legal realm, topoi play a crucial role in constitutional interpretation and argumentation. Constitutional topics structure constitutional arguments, providing a shared framework for legal professionals to engage in reasoned and structured discourse. By employing these rhetorical techniques, lawyers can ensure that their arguments align with the interpretive attitude of fidelity to the Constitution and contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding constitutional interpretation.

Explore related products

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

The Debates in the several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 3

$19.99 $19.99

A Debate on the Second Amendment (Constitutional Discourse Book 2020)

$3.99 $7.99

Report of the debates in the Convention of California on the formation of the state constitution, in September and October, 1849

$8.95 $19.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution (Witness to History)

$11.99 $17.99

Constitutional limits: The Constitution is seen as a bill of powers, with rights retained by the people, not the government

The US Constitution is a document that outlines the powers of the government and the rights retained by the people. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are particularly relevant when discussing the constitutional limits on government power.

The Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment recognizes that the Constitution may not explicitly mention all the rights retained by the people and ensures that the mention of certain rights does not diminish or invalidate other rights not listed.

The Tenth Amendment further emphasizes the limited nature of government power. It states, "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." This amendment underscores that the national government has only the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution, and any powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states or the people.

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was a response to concerns about the lack of explicit limits on government power in the original Constitution. James Madison, a key figure in this process, proposed amendments to address these limitations and protect individual liberties. The Bill of Rights includes guarantees such as freedom of speech and religion, the right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable government intrusion, and protections for those accused of crimes, such as the right to a jury trial and due process.

The interpretation and implementation of these constitutional limits have been a continuous point of debate and discussion, with Federalists and Anti-Federalists holding differing views on the balance of power between the federal government and state governments. The Federalists advocated for a strong national government, believing that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were retained by the people and states. On the other hand, Anti-Federalists favored a stronger role for state and local governments and strongly supported the inclusion of a bill of rights to safeguard individual liberty.

Presidential terms: There is debate over whether a president can run for a third term without causing a constitutional crisis

The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1951, states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". This amendment was passed in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's four consecutive terms as President, which broke a long-standing norm in American politics against running for a third term. While the 22nd Amendment clearly prohibits a president from being elected to a third term, some have argued that it does not explicitly prevent a two-term president from becoming vice president and then assuming the presidency for a third term.

This interpretation stems from the 12th Amendment, which states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". However, the 25th Amendment clarifies that the vice president does indeed "become" president in every sense when the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office. This ambiguity has led to debates about whether a two-term president can legally become vice president and then assume the presidency for a third term without causing a constitutional crisis.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and prominent constitutional law scholar, has argued that there would be a constitutional argument for a president to seek a third term in this manner. He believes that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it. However, most legal scholars disagree, stating that the idea of a third term is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The debate highlights the complex nature of constitutional interpretation and the potential for different readings of the same amendments.

While President Donald Trump has joked about running for a third term, he has also stated that he is serious about the idea. This has sparked discussions about the legality of such a move, with some of his supporters even filing legislation to begin the process. However, the effort faces significant opposition and has been called far-fetched by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who emphasised that amending the Constitution is a high bar to clear. The debate continues to fuel discussions about the limits of presidential power and the checks and balances in place to uphold the principles of American democracy.

Frequently asked questions