The Constitutional Question: What's At Stake?

The Supreme Court has the power to decide on the constitutionality of federal and state government actions. This power is known as judicial review and was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between two or more states, and appellate jurisdiction over almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional or federal law. The Court's decisions have a profound impact on society, including landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, which held that state laws requiring racially segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), which held that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court also decides on constitutional questions that are political in nature, such as in the case of Luther v. Borden, which dealt with the claims of two competing factions vying to be declared the lawful government of Rhode Island.

Explore related products

Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics: Analysis, Cases, & Materials

$49.99 $220

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$108.14 $150

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

Homeopathic Methodology: Repertory, Case Taking, and Case Analysis

$18.43 $21.95

Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement

$47.19 $58.99

Constitutional Case Research and Analysis(Chinese Edition)

$31.1

Can Congress prohibit slavery in free territories?

The question of whether Congress could prohibit slavery in free territories was a highly contested issue in the United States during the 19th century, with a complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors at play. The answer to this question evolved over time through a combination of legislative actions, court rulings, and constitutional amendments.

Initially, the US Constitution did not explicitly mention the term "slavery", but it included provisions related to the institution of slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise, for instance, referenced in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, stated that enslaved persons would be considered as "three-fifths" of a fully free citizen for representation purposes. Additionally, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, prohibited Congress from abolishing the importation of slaves for twenty years after the Constitution took effect. This clause was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was integral to the economy, and states contemplating or having already accomplished abolition.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a significant development in the debate over congressional power to prohibit slavery in free territories. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a non-slave state, maintaining the balance between slave and free states. The Compromise also proposed prohibiting slavery above the 36° 30' latitude line in the remainder of the Louisiana Territory. However, this provision was later repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857 further complicated the question of congressional authority over slavery in territories. The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, arguing that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery in the Louisiana Territory as it was not part of the United States at the time of the Constitution's ratification. This decision de facto nationalized slavery and contributed to the tensions leading up to the American Civil War.

It was not until the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, that chattel slavery was officially banned and declared illegal across the United States and its territories. This amendment explicitly stated that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crimes, shall exist within the United States or any place under its jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the question of whether Congress could prohibit slavery in free territories evolved from early compromises in the Constitution to more definitive actions like the Missouri Compromise and, ultimately, the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The complex political and social dynamics surrounding slavery, particularly between slave and free states, influenced the legislative and judicial decisions made during this tumultuous period in American history.

Can Congress establish a national bank?

The question of whether Congress can establish a national bank has been a subject of debate and controversy since the early days of the United States. The establishment of the First Bank of the United States, also known as the Bank of the United States, in 1791, marked the first time this question was raised.

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, played a key role in advocating for the creation of a national bank. In his "Report on a National Bank" (also known as the "Second Report on Public Credit"), Hamilton proposed a national bank with $10 million in capital, arguing that it was necessary for the country's economic development. The bill faced opposition, particularly from Southern congressmen, who argued that it was elitist, encroached on states' rights, and was unconstitutional. Despite this, the bill passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Washington on February 25, 1791.

The constitutionality of the national bank was again called into question in 1819 in the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland. The case addressed the issue of Federal power and commerce, specifically the power of Congress to charter a bank and the division of powers between the state and the Federal Government. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States was constitutional and that Congress alone had the power to make such a decision.

The establishment of a national bank and the subsequent debates surrounding its constitutionality played a significant role in shaping the early American economy and the interpretation of Federal power. The controversy also contributed to the creation of America's first organized opposition party, the Republicans, highlighting the complex and evolving nature of the country's political landscape.

While the specific details of the debates and outcomes have evolved over time, the question of whether Congress can establish a national bank continues to be a topic of discussion and analysis in the context of Federal power, states' rights, and the interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Can students be drug tested at school?

The issue of drug testing in schools is a highly controversial topic, with legal, financial, and ethical implications. While schools have a responsibility to provide a safe and drug-free environment for students, the question of whether random drug testing is an effective and appropriate measure is hotly debated.

Legal Considerations

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens, including students, from unreasonable searches and seizures. Drug testing, as it involves collecting bodily fluids or samples, is considered a form of search. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the need for a safe school environment can, in certain cases, justify drug testing, particularly for students involved in extracurricular activities, such as athletics. This ruling sets a precedent for schools to implement drug testing policies, but it is important to note that state laws and district policies may vary, and schools must respect legal boundaries and local values.

Effectiveness and Impact

The effectiveness of drug testing in schools is questionable. While some studies suggest that random drug testing can reduce drug use and deter adolescents from experimenting with drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, other studies have found no significant impact on substance use prevalence or frequency. There are also concerns that random drug testing may inadvertently push experimental users towards more problematic use and create a culture of mistrust and resistance among students.

Financial Considerations

Drug testing can be costly for schools, and the expense may outweigh the potential benefits. The money spent on testing could otherwise be allocated to drug education, prevention, or counselling services, which experts argue are more effective strategies for keeping students off drugs.

Student Rights and Privacy

Opponents of random drug testing argue that it violates students' right to privacy and can make them feel embarrassed or uncomfortable. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) encourages students to stand up for their rights and challenge school drug testing policies. They suggest students enlist the support of parents, teachers, and peers to speak out against these policies and contact local press to raise awareness.

In conclusion, while schools have a duty to address drug use among students, the constitutional question of whether they can implement random drug testing remains contentious. Balancing student privacy rights with the need for a safe and drug-free environment is a complex issue, and the effectiveness of drug testing as a preventive measure is uncertain. As such, the decision to implement drug testing in schools should be carefully considered, taking into account legal, ethical, and financial implications, as well as exploring alternative approaches to address substance use among students.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law, Volume I: The Structure of Government

$98.8 $130

American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments

$102.64 $150

Constitutional Law (Hornbooks)

$182 $182

Law 101: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Everyday Law Basics and Answers to Legal Questions (Law Book for Beginners)

$18.47 $22.99

Questions & Answers: Professional Responsibility (Questions & Answers Series)

$28

Questions & Answers: Professional Responsibility (Questions & Answers Series)

$28 $29.5

Do police need to inform people in custody of their rights?

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, advising them of their right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights, named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning must be given when two key criteria are met: the suspect must be in police custody, and an interrogation must be taking place.

Police Custody

Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. If a reasonable person in those circumstances would not feel free to leave, then they are in custody. For example, being handcuffed, transported to a station, or being told they are not free to leave would all constitute custody. However, temporary detentions such as routine traffic stops or being pulled over for speeding do not constitute custody, and so Miranda warnings are not usually required.

Interrogation

Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Questioning prior to custody is usually administrative or investigative and does not require Miranda warnings. The duty to warn arises only when police officers conduct custodial interrogations.

Public Safety Exception

In emergencies where immediate action is necessary to protect public safety, officers may bypass Miranda warnings temporarily. For example, they may ask about the location of a weapon or an accomplice to prevent imminent danger.

Rights of the Accused

The Miranda rights include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions or provide information. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel means that the suspect has the right to consult with an attorney before questioning and have an attorney present during interrogation.

Violation of Miranda Rights

If the police fail to give a Miranda warning when required, any statements made by the suspect in response to questioning may be deemed inadmissible in court. However, these statements may still be used for limited purposes, such as establishing a timeline or impeaching the defendant if they choose to testify and contradict their prior statements.

In conclusion, police are required to inform individuals in custody of their Miranda rights when an interrogation is intended. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as in cases of public safety emergencies. It is important to note that the specific language used in the warnings may vary between jurisdictions.

Can students be barred from wearing political symbols at school?

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and courts have ruled that students' right to free speech in school is more broadly protected than teachers' rights. In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. This set a precedent that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing. This includes wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or wearing t-shirts concerning gay rights, for example.

However, this right is not absolute. Schools can prohibit clothing with "indecent" or other messages that may cause a disruption. For instance, in the case of Gardner v. Cumberland School Committee in 1972, the RI Commissioner of Education held that school districts can regulate the dress of pupils when it "presents a clear and present danger to the student’s health and safety, causes an interference with school work, or creates a classroom or school disorder." Similarly, in Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987), the Supreme Court held that students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

In practice, the line between permissible and impermissible restrictions on student speech can be blurry. For example, in 2010, students at Live Oak High School in California were told to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out or go home during Cinco de Mayo celebrations due to concerns over racial tensions between Hispanic and Anglo students. The students' parents filed a lawsuit, alleging that the school and its administrators violated their children's free speech rights. The outcome of this case is not known, but it illustrates the complexities that can arise when balancing students' rights to free speech with the need to maintain order and safety in schools.

Frequently asked questions