The Supreme Law: Commands Of The Constitution

Louis Michael Seidman, a prominent constitutional law scholar, advocates for the reform of certain outdated constitutional commands. Seidman believes that some structural elements are crucial for a functioning democracy, such as the bicameral legislature, which necessitates collaboration and compromise among elected representatives. He supports the structure of Congress being divided into two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, as it promotes checks and balances within the legislative process. Additionally, Seidman emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech, which allows individuals to express their ideas and opinions without fear of government censorship or punishment. This fundamental right is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is considered essential for a thriving democracy.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

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

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$229.76 $359

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Freedom of speech

> "Congress shall make no law... 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."

The First Amendment protects not only spoken words but also written expression, symbolic speech, and other forms of communication. It is interpreted to mean that no branch or section of the federal, state, or local governments can infringe upon American citizens' right to free speech. This includes protection against government interference or censorship on online platforms.

The freedom to express oneself without fear is essential for a thriving democracy, as it encourages open discussion and debate, promotes diverse viewpoints, and holds the government accountable. It is worth noting that private organizations, such as businesses, colleges, and religious groups, are not bound by the same Constitutional obligation to uphold freedom of speech.

Louis Michael Seidman, a prominent constitutional law scholar, supports maintaining the constitutional command of freedom of speech. He argues that this right is fundamental to a functioning democracy, allowing individuals to freely express their ideas and opinions.

Bicameral legislature

Bicameralism is a type of legislature that is divided into two separate assemblies, chambers, or houses, known as a bicameral legislature. It is distinct from unicameralism, in which all members deliberate and vote as a single group. As of 2022, approximately 40% of the world's national legislatures are bicameral, while unicameralism represents 60% nationally and much more at the subnational level. The United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, India, and Brazil are among the countries with federal systems that employ bicameralism at the national level, known as the federal legislature.

The United States is an example of a country that has adopted bicameralism at the national level, with its legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives acts as the "lower house", with members serving two-year terms to remain responsive to voters' needs, while the Senate acts as the "upper house" or "upper chamber". The number of representatives in the House is proportional to each state's population, ranging from one representative for the least populous states to 53 for California. The lawmaking process can begin in either chamber, and the enactment of primary legislation often requires a concurrent majority, or approval from a majority of members in each chamber.

The Founding Fathers of the United States established a bicameral legislature as part of a system of checks and balances, aiming to prevent any single legislative body from holding too much power. This was also influenced by the quarrel between larger and smaller states over representation at the federal level, with the larger states favouring representation by population and the smaller states seeking equal representation. The Great Compromise proposed by Roger Sherman resolved this dispute by adopting bicameralism, providing for representation by population in one house and equal representation in the other.

Bicameralism has practical and historical justifications. Practically, it helps to prevent hasty and harsh legislation by diffusing factional power and providing an additional layer of checks and balances within the legislative branch. Historically, bicameralism has functioned to balance the power of different social classes or groups within a society, as seen in medieval Europe with the nobility, clergy, and commoners.

While bicameralism remains prevalent, there has been a shift towards unicameralism in some countries. Nebraska in the U.S., Queensland in Australia, Bavaria in Germany, and several provinces in Brazil and Canada have adopted unicameral systems.

Checks and balances

The US Constitution divides the government into three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. This separation of powers is a key feature of checks and balances, ensuring that no one branch holds too much power.

The legislative branch, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is responsible for making laws. However, the executive branch, led by the President, can exercise a presidential veto to overrule these laws. The legislative branch's power is further checked by the judiciary, which can declare laws unconstitutional.

The executive branch, through federal agencies, is responsible for enforcing and administering federal laws. The President has the power to appoint executive officers and judges, but requires the Senate's consent. The President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and can grant reprieves and pardons for offences, except in cases of impeachment.

The judiciary's independence is assured through good-behaviour tenure and security of compensation. Judicial review allows the courts to check the other two branches, and the impeachment power gives Congress the authority to address corruption and abuse of power.

The people of the United States also play a role in checks and balances. They can vote for their Representatives every two years and Senators every six years, indirectly influencing the makeup of the Judicial branch. Additionally, an amendment to the Constitution can be blocked if 3/4 of the states refuse to ratify it.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Right to assemble

The right to assemble, also known as freedom of assembly, is a fundamental human right, political right, and civil liberty. It is often associated with the right to protest and is included in various human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. The freedom of assembly is recognised in the constitutions of several countries, including the United States, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Russia, and Taiwan.

In the United States, the right to assemble is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law... 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." This provision ensures that individuals can freely express their ideas and opinions without fear of government censorship or punishment.

The right to assemble is often associated with the right to petition the government, as individuals come together to collectively express their ideas and seek redress for their grievances. This right to petition has a long history, dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Over time, the right to petition evolved, with the House of Commons in England claiming the right to dictate the response to petitions and, later, every commoner being granted the inherent right to petition the King or the House of Commons.

The interpretation of the right to assemble has been a subject of discussion, with some viewing it as a subordinate right to the right to petition. However, the Supreme Court has affirmed the significance of the right to peaceable assembly, considering it equally fundamental as the rights to free speech and a free press. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of freedom of assembly as the ability of individuals to peaceably assemble and collectively express and defend their ideas.

Right to petition the government

The right to petition the government is a constitutional command that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This right allows the people to communicate directly with government officials to complain, request action, or share a viewpoint, among other things. It is often treated by the modern Supreme Court as part of an expansive interpretation of the free speech clause.

The right to petition is also connected to the right to freedom of assembly, as both are considered essential for a thriving democracy. They encourage open discussion and debate, allowing individuals to express their ideas and opinions without fear of government censorship or punishment. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law... 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."

The right to petition the government is not limited to speech and assembly but also includes the right to court access. However, this right to court access has been interpreted narrowly by scholars and jurists as the right to file a lawsuit. This narrow interpretation has been criticised for failing to differentiate between the right to petition, freedom of speech, and due process, thus diminishing the significance of the Petition Clause when individuals petition courts.

Despite the recognition of the right to petition the government, there have been instances where this right has been limited, particularly for poor plaintiffs. In three Supreme Court cases from the early 1970s, the Court ruled that poor persons who could not afford court filing fees were properly barred from accessing the courts to pursue their civil legal claims. This created a situation where certain individuals were denied access to the Judicial Branch of the government to seek resolution for their grievances.

Frequently asked questions