Omar Bennett
The United States Constitution establishes the federal judiciary and permits Congress to decide how to organize it. The Constitution also sets down rules for how Congress can operate, what it may and may not do, and what it must do. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its power. The Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court held that an Act of Congress contrary to the Constitution could not stand. Over the years, the Supreme Court has held several Acts of Congress unconstitutional in whole or in part, including the Social Security Act, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963.
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Violation of the First Amendment
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791, guarantees several protections related to freedom of expression and religion. It states that "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."
Despite these protections, there have been instances where Acts of Congress and congressional actions have been accused of violating the First Amendment. One notable example is the Sedition Act of 1798, which made it a crime to criticise the President of the United States. This Act was adopted by a Federalist-dominated Congress and was in direct conflict with the freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Another example is the Espionage Act, under which Socialist Party of America official Charles Schenck was convicted for publishing leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I. Schenck appealed, arguing that the Espionage Act violated his right to freedom of speech. In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal, affirming his conviction. This decision set a precedent for evaluating the danger posed by certain types of speech, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stating that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger."
In addition to these cases, there have been other instances where Congress has been accused of infringing on the right to petition the government, a right protected by the First Amendment. During World War I, individuals who petitioned for the repeal of sedition and espionage laws were punished with imprisonment, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court. Similarly, during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s, congressional actions, such as holding televised hearings into the associations of individuals, appeared to call into question the right to freedom of association and belief, which is implicit in the First Amendment.
The issue of flag desecration, particularly in the case of Texas v. Johnson (1989), also highlights potential conflicts between congressional actions and the First Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court asserted that the government cannot prohibit the expression of ideas, even if they are deemed offensive or disagreeable, as Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in his decision: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Despite this ruling, Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. Eichman (1990).
Congress' Power to Tax: Exploring Constitutional Boundaries
You may want to see also
Violation of the Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution contains the following provisions:
> 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 offense 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.
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to offer two primary protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to adhere to fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which safeguards particular fundamental rights from government interference. The Fifth Amendment also includes the Self-Incrimination Clause, which protects individuals from being compelled to provide evidence that could be used against them in a criminal case.
Acts of Congress have been deemed to violate the Fifth Amendment in several instances. For example, in the case of *Califano v. Westcott* (1979), a provision of the Social Security Act that extended benefits to families whose dependent children had been deprived of parental support due to the unemployment of the father, but not the mother, was held to impermissibly classify on the basis of sex and violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
In another case, *Leary v. United States*, the court struck down the Marijuana Tax Act because its record-keeping statute required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, in *Haynes v. United States*, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register any firearms they owned constituted self-incrimination and was therefore unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Indian Land Consolidation Act, which provided for the escheat to a tribe of fractionated interests in land representing less than 2% of a tract's total acreage, was found to violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by completely abrogating rights of intestacy and devise.
Furthermore, the Railroad Retirement Act, which established a detailed compulsory retirement system for employees of carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, was held to violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the right to a grand jury in certain circumstances. Federal law sets the number of grand jurors between 16 and 23, and statutes that set the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment.
The SEC's Cabinet Department: Structure and Functionality
You may want to see also
Violation of the Establishment Clause
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, along with the Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, establishes the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any laws that establish an official religion or unduly favour one religion over another. It also prevents the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or vice versa.
The Establishment Clause was principally authored by James Madison and was included in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified by three-quarters of the states and became part of the US Constitution. The Clause was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with the state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the nation's founding. It acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government.
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing the Establishment Clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court identified three factors to determine whether a government practice violates the Establishment Clause: firstly, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; secondly, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and finally, the statute must not foster excessive entanglement with religion.
Despite the Establishment Clause's clear prohibition on laws regarding the establishment of religion, there have been controversies and legal challenges regarding its interpretation and application. For example, the Supreme Court has allowed religious invocations to open legislative sessions and the use of public funds for private religious school transportation. Additionally, the Court has addressed the issue of religious monuments on public land, such as in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), where the Court considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected on federal land.
In conclusion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is a crucial component of the US Constitution, safeguarding the freedom of religion and preventing the government from establishing or favouring any particular religion. The Supreme Court has been instrumental in interpreting and enforcing this Clause, ensuring that the government's actions do not violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Supreme Court: Beyond the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Violation of the Separation of Powers
The US Constitution establishes a federal judiciary, with Article III, Section I stating that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This means that while the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it allows Congress to decide how to organise it.
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that each branch of government recognises its power limits. It does so by exercising its power of judicial review, which allows it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
The Supreme Court has held that various Acts of Congress are unconstitutional in whole or in part. For example, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court found that provisions of election law that limited independent expenditures by any person relative to an identified candidate and forbade expenditures by candidates for federal office in excess of specified amounts violated the First Amendment's speech guarantees. Additionally, the provisions creating a commission to oversee the enforcement of the Act were deemed an invalid infringement of the constitutional separation of powers. This is because the commission's composition, with four of its six members appointed by Congress and all six confirmed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, did not comply with the appointments clause.
In another case, New York v. United States (1992), the Court held that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, as it would be inconsistent with the Constitution's allocation of power between the federal and state governments.
These examples demonstrate how the Supreme Court interprets and enforces the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that Acts of Congress do not exceed their constitutional authority.
Trump's Controversial Statement: Constitution Doesn't Matter?
You may want to see also
Violation of the Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause has been a source of significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause, as per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".
The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been contentious, with the Constitution not explicitly defining the word "commerce". Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that it describes broader commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Courts have generally taken a broad interpretation of the clause for much of US history.
The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided it is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. In Swift & Co. v. United States (1905), the Court affirmed Congress's authority to regulate local commerce when it could become part of interstate commerce.
However, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation. The Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, arguing that it did not pertain to "commerce" or "economic enterprise" and was not essential to regulating interstate commerce. This marked the first time in almost 60 years that the Court invalidated a federal law for exceeding the Commerce Clause.
In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause, upholding federal drug prohibition laws.
The Commerce Clause has also been invoked in cases involving the Violence Against Women Act, where the Supreme Court ruled that creating a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Who Commands the Armed Forces?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution.
There is no formal process to sanction Congress for violating the Constitution. The Constitution does, however, outline that Congress must assemble at least once per year.
Acts of Congress become law when they are passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. They can also become law if left unsigned for ten days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session or if a congressional override receives two-thirds of the vote in both houses.
In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Provision of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 was held to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This was because it removed restrictions against the religious use of facilities constructed with federal funds after 20 years.
