Jonah Patel
The US Constitution outlines specific limitations on federal powers to protect personal liberties and maintain a balance of power between the federal and state governments. Two powers denied to Congress by the Constitution are the ability to control the military and the power to pass ex post facto laws.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Powers | Control the military, try anyone outside the federal government, suspend habeas corpus, pass bills of attainder, enact ex post facto laws, regulate interstate or foreign commerce, establish a sound money system, enforce treaties, tax people directly, raise a sufficient military force |
Explore related products
$71.95 $71.95
What You'll Learn
Congress cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus
The U.S. Constitution denies Congress certain powers, including the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This is known as the Suspension Clause. The writ of habeas corpus is a court order that requires law enforcement to produce a prisoner in court and explain why they are being detained. The Suspension Clause protects the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which means that the federal government cannot suspend this right except in extraordinary circumstances. These circumstances include cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk.
The Suspension Clause assumes that some access to habeas relief will exist when the privilege of the writ has not been suspended. However, it does not expressly guarantee that access. The interpretation of the clause has been disputed, with some arguing that it only restricts Congress's ability to suspend existing habeas statutes. Others argue that it guarantees prisoners a forum to challenge their detention. In recent years, the writ is typically sought by convicted defendants in state prison, with over 18,000 petitions for the writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court annually.
The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified. The first suspension occurred during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended the privilege. This decision was controversial and met with opposition, but Lincoln was able to secure congressional authorization after the fact. The second suspension took place in eleven counties in South Carolina that were overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. The third suspension occurred in two provinces of the Philippines during an insurrection in 1905, and the fourth suspension happened in Hawaii after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The Suspension Clause has been the subject of several significant court cases. In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress's suspension of the writ in 1863 did not authorize the President to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were operational. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court held that the Suspension Clause guarantees prisoners a forum to challenge their detention, even if they are detained outside the United States.
The Tax Court: Interpreting Constitution, Shaping Our Finances
You may want to see also
Congress cannot pass bills of attainder
The US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing "bills of attainder". This is to ensure the separation of powers and protect citizens from potential abuses of government power. The US Constitution only permits the judiciary to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent.
A bill of attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual or group without the provision of the protections of a judicial trial. In other words, these are laws that impose criminal punishment on specific individuals for actions they previously took, without the benefit of a trial. For example, in 1965, the Court held that a federal statute making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer of a labour union was a bill of attainder.
The Supreme Court has applied the constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder in a pair of Reconstruction-era cases, Ex parte Garland and Cummings v. Missouri. Both cases concerned challenged provisions that required people engaged in certain professions to swear an oath that they had never been disloyal to the United States.
In 2009, the city of Portland, Oregon's attempt to prosecute those on a "secret list" of individuals who had committed "liveability crimes" in certain neighbourhoods was challenged as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. In 2010, a federal district court declared the funding ban an unconstitutional bill of attainder after the US House of Representatives passed a resolution barring the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) from receiving federal funding.
Who Confirms Presidential Cabinet Picks?
You may want to see also
Congress cannot enact ex post facto laws
The United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting ex post facto laws. This restriction is outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, which states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". This clause ensures that legislative acts provide fair warning of their effects and allow individuals to understand the laws they are subject to.
Ex post facto laws are those that retroactively change the consequences of actions that were committed before the law was passed. In other words, it is a law with retroactive effect, applying to events that occurred prior to its enactment. For example, a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment for an act that was not considered a crime when it was committed would be considered an ex post facto law.
The prohibition on ex post facto laws by Congress serves to restrict arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation. It ensures that individuals cannot be punished for actions that were legal when they committed them. This principle is reflected in the Latin legal term "Lex retro non agit", which translates to "a law does not apply retroactively".
While the US Constitution prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws at both the federal and state levels, it is important to note that this prohibition only applies to criminal law. Retroactive changes to civil law may be permitted in certain circumstances, as long as they do not impair contractual obligations or result in the loss of a constitutionally protected right, such as the right to damages.
How Special Interests Get Their Way in Lawmaking
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Congress cannot control the military
While the US Constitution grants Congress substantial authority over the military, it stops short of allowing Congress to control the military. The Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and while it gives Congress the power to "raise and support" military forces and "make rules" for their government, it does not grant Congress the authority to direct the military's operations.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to "raise and support Armies" and to "provide and maintain a Navy." This includes the authority to appropriate funds for the military, establish military units for specific purposes, and set limits on their use. Congress can also structure the military chain of command, allocate duties to specific personnel, and insulate military personnel from removal. These powers allow Congress to exert a degree of influence over the military's activities, but they do not amount to direct control.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the ultimate authority to direct the nation's armed forces. The Executive Branch has claimed plenary authority over the assignment of military duties and control of military officers, but this consensus has been contested. The constitutional text and historical practice suggest that Congress has extensive power to structure the offices, chains of command, and disciplinary mechanisms through which the President's authority is exercised. However, the exact line between Congress's authority and that of the President remains heavily contested.
Congress's power to control the military is further limited by the Constitution's prohibition on passing ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. Congress cannot pass laws that make an act a crime after the act was committed or retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were legal when they were committed. This restriction prevents Congress from using legislation to directly control the military's actions after the fact.
In recent years, Congress has enacted statutes that seek to set limits on the President's ability to remove deployments of US soldiers from long-standing posts. These actions have sparked debates about the extent of Congress's authority over the military and whether such laws infringe on the President's constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. While Congress has broad powers related to the military, the Constitution does not grant it direct control over the military's operations, and the President retains the ultimate authority to direct the armed forces.
The Constitution's Guiding Principles Explored
You may want to see also
Congress cannot try anyone outside the federal government
The United States Constitution, primarily in Article I, Sections 9 and 10, outlines specific limitations on federal powers to protect personal liberties and maintain a balance of power between the federal and state governments. One of these limitations is that Congress cannot try anyone outside the federal government.
The US Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances to ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws and outlines specific restrictions on its authority. The Tenth Amendment further emphasizes that any powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
The limitation on Congress's ability to try individuals outside the federal government means that Congress cannot act as a court and conduct trials for individuals who are not part of the federal government or hold federal office. This restriction is in place to maintain the separation of powers and ensure that the legislative branch does not overstep its bounds into the judicial domain.
It is important to note that while Congress cannot directly try individuals outside the federal government, it does have the power to impeach federal officers, including the President, Vice President, and civil officers. The Senate then has the sole power to try all impeachments, with the Chief Justice presiding over the trial of the President. This process allows for accountability and the removal from office of those found guilty, while also respecting the separation of powers.
In summary, the US Constitution denies Congress the power to try anyone outside the federal government, maintaining the balance of powers and protecting the rights of individuals. The Constitution establishes a clear framework for the impeachment and trial process, ensuring that Congress's authority is limited to the legislative sphere, with checks and balances provided by the other branches of government.
Congress Powers: Exploring the Extent of 'Necessary and Proper
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Constitution denies Congress the power to control the military and the power to try anyone outside the federal government.
The Articles of Confederation denied Congress the power to tax people directly and the power to raise a military force.
The US Constitution denies Congress the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and the power to pass a bill of attainder.
