Jonah Patel
The United States Constitution is one of the longest-lived and most emulated constitutions in the world. However, this does not mean that there have not been attempts to get around it. The US Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by 38 delegates, with one delegate signing on behalf of an absent delegate, bringing the total number of signatures to 39. The delegates had assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation, but by mid-June, they had decided to completely redesign the government. The delegates representing wildly differing interests and views crafted compromises, such as the three-fifths compromise, which counted enslaved Africans as three-fifths of a person, and an agreement to empower Congress to end the slave trade by 1808. Despite these compromises, there have been numerous attempts to circumvent or defy the Constitution, including by President Biden, who announced he would not enforce the Tik-Tok ban that he had signed into law, and by President Trump, whose attempts to roll back birthright citizenship were blocked by federal judges as blatantly unconstitutional.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Attempts to alter the draft | Adding property qualifications for people to hold office, preventing the government from issuing paper money |
| Draft revisions | Addition of the "Necessary and Proper Clause", eight specific limits on states, revision of the Supremacy Clause |
| Last-minute issues addressed | Modification of language regarding spending bills, empowering the Senate to modify spending bills proposed by the House |
| Congressional representation debate | Based on population or divided equally among states |
| Compromise | Each state gets one representative for 30,000 people in the House and two in the Senate; slave trade to continue until 1808 |
| Signatories | 39 of 55 delegates signed |
| Federal impost approval | Disapproved by New York |
| Ratification | Required 9 of 13 states |
| Anti-Federalist opposition | Powerful central government, lack of a bill of rights |
| Trump orders | Roll back birthright citizenship, freeze federal spending, shut down USAID |
| Biden administration | Attempted to cancel student loan debt after Supreme Court ruling |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's attempts to roll back birthright citizenship
The United States adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship, meaning anyone born within US territory is automatically a citizen at birth. This was enacted following the end of the Civil War, with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution seeking to guarantee certain rights for African Americans.
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, known as Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, aimed at ending birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants and people with temporary status in the US. This was an attempt to abolish over 125 years of precedent and the country's longstanding policy of unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship.
Trump's executive order has faced widespread criticism and legal challenges. Multiple federal judges have ruled against the order, with Boston-based US District Judge Leo Sorokin writing that the "Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the president's executive order". The ACLU has also argued against the order, stating that it is "'wildly' unconstitutional" and that "no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship".
Despite the legal challenges, Trump's administration has continued to defend the order, with the Justice Department arguing that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on the issue, with Trump predicting victory and stating that the case has been misunderstood.
The Outcome of Ratification: A Historical Process
You may want to see also
Biden's attempt to cancel student loan debt
While the US Constitution does not specifically mention student loan debt, there have been debates about whether President Biden's attempts to cancel student loan debt for millions of Americans violate the Constitution.
President Joe Biden has overseen the cancellation of student loans for over 5 million Americans, a figure higher than any other president in history. This was achieved through a combination of existing programs and regulatory changes. The Biden administration temporarily relaxed eligibility rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, and then made this change more permanent in 2023. As a result, over 1 million public servants have had their loan balances forgiven. Additionally, the Education Department cancelled loans for 150,000 borrowers through pre-existing programs, which the Biden administration expanded and utilised to their fullest extent.
However, Biden's broader plan for student debt relief, which proposed up to $20,000 in relief for over 40 million Americans, was blocked by the Supreme Court. The Court's conservative majority is reviewing a legal challenge that could eliminate the program, with a decision expected in summer 2023. Biden has also vetoed Republican-led legislation that would have cancelled his plan to forgive student debt, stating that it denies critical relief to millions of Americans.
Critics, including Republicans in Congress, have argued that Biden's actions amount to overstepping his power and that the cost of loan forgiveness will be borne by taxpayers who did not take out student loans. They argue that Biden is not "forgiving" loans but rather shifting the debt onto taxpayers. In contrast, supporters of Biden's actions argue that he has taken historic action to reduce the burden of student debt and hold bad actors accountable.
The debate surrounding Biden's attempts to cancel student loan debt highlights the complex interplay between executive power, legislative authority, and the interpretation of the Constitution. While the direct constitutionality of Biden's actions is not clear, the debate underscores the ongoing tensions between different political ideologies and interpretations of governmental power in the United States.
Free Copies of the US Constitution: Pocket-Sized Power
You may want to see also
The addition of the 'Necessary and Proper Clause'
The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as Clause 18 under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, has been a source of controversy and debate since its inception. The clause states that "The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof".
The inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was a highly contested issue during its drafting. Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry, argued that the clause would grant the federal government unlimited power and potentially threaten individual liberty. On the other hand, Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison supported its inclusion, arguing that it was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the Constitution and that it only permitted the execution of powers granted by the Constitution.
The Necessary and Proper Clause has had a significant impact on the interpretation of the Constitution and the powers of the federal government. In the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court ruled that the clause grants implied powers to Congress in addition to those explicitly stated in the Constitution. This decision expanded the reach of the federal government and set a precedent for interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause broadly.
One of the earliest examples of the Necessary and Proper Clause being invoked was in 1791, when Alexander Hamilton used it to defend the establishment of the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and borrowing funds, even if it was not absolutely necessary. This set a precedent for interpreting the clause as applying to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, rather than just those that were essential.
The Necessary and Proper Clause has been used in conjunction with the Commerce Clause to justify a wide range of federal laws and regulations. For example, during the New Deal era, the clause was invoked to defend the constitutionality of various reforms aimed at regulating interstate commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute regulating wheat production and consumption under the Necessary and Proper Clause, even when it was for a farmer's personal use.
The clause has also been invoked in cases involving the creation of banks and corporations, such as the abrogation of clauses in private contracts and the issuance of treasury notes. Additionally, it has been used to justify the power to define and punish crimes and offences whenever necessary to effectuate the objectives of the Federal Government, such as conspiracy to injure citizens in the exercise of their constitutional rights. In United States v. Comstock (1862), the Court evaluated a federal statute allowing for the civil commitment of a federal prisoner beyond their term if they posed a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation. The Necessary and Proper Clause was considered, along with other factors, in upholding the statute.
The Declaration's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The modification of the Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, are the "supreme Law of the Land". It was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787, and passed unanimously.
The Supremacy Clause assumes the priority of federal authority, but only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and must not violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights. The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, and it is a vital component of the nation's functioning.
The Supremacy Clause also addresses the legal status of laws that the Constitution empowers Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. It specifies that the Constitution binds the judges in every state, regardless of any state laws to the contrary. This means that when Congress legislates according to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield.
The Supremacy Clause is not, however, the source of any federal rights, and individual litigants cannot sue to enforce federal law through it. This is because a reading of the Clause that allowed individuals to sue would prevent Congress from limiting enforcement of federal laws to federal actors.
Trump's Call to End the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The debate over congressional representation
During the American Revolution, all states established republican forms of government, with people choosing representatives for their state legislatures. Eleven states had bicameral legislatures, with lower houses holding more power, while Pennsylvania and Georgia had unicameral legislatures. The Constitution called for a bicameral Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Federalists argued that the House of Representatives was more democratic than the Confederation Congress, as voters could elect their representatives. They also believed that the two-year term would create continuity, allowing representatives from distant states to focus on national affairs rather than frequent elections.
However, Antifederalists criticised the House of Representatives as being too small to adequately represent all segments of American society. According to Article I of the Constitution, the first House would have only 65 members if all 13 states ratified. They also opposed biennial elections, recalling that delegates to Congress under the Articles of Confederation served one-year terms and could only serve three years within a six-year period. Additionally, Antifederalists argued that the House should have treaty-making powers as treaties would be the law of the land.
The disagreement over representation in the Senate was particularly acute, with delegates from larger states advocating for representation to be proportionate to population, while smaller states argued for equal representation to prevent dominance by larger states. This debate resulted in the Great Compromise, which established today's system of congressional representation, with proportional representation in the House and equal state representation in the Senate. The principle of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate is reflected in the Electoral College, where the number of electoral votes per state is based on its combined number of representatives in the House and Senate.
Justices' Life Terms: What Does the Constitution Say?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution is the supreme law that outlines the rights and duties of the federal government of the United States. It serves as the foundation for the country's legal system and establishes the structure and powers of its government.
Yes, there have been several attempts to circumvent or alter the provisions of the Constitution throughout history. For example, during the Constitutional Convention, there were disputes over congressional representation, with some wanting it based on population and others wanting equal division among states. This resulted in a compromise where each state was given one representative for every 30,000 people in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate.
In recent times, there have been debates about whether certain actions taken by political leaders constitute a constitutional crisis. For instance, some of former President Trump's orders, such as attempting to roll back birthright citizenship and freezing federal spending, have been seen by some as unconstitutional and were challenged in court.
A constitutional crisis occurs when there is a significant dispute or uncertainty regarding the interpretation or application of the Constitution, often involving conflicts between different branches of government or violations of established norms and principles. During such crises, the country's commitment to the rule of law and democratic principles may be tested.
