Eleanor Finch
The US Constitution is often cited as the legal and moral basis for various proposals by pundits, candidates, and party activists. However, it is silent on many issues, and several concepts are not part of the Constitution despite being commonly associated with it. For example, the Constitution does not mention martial law or law martial, and while it does address the issue of juries, it does not guarantee a jury of one's peers. It also does not directly mention paper money, and interestingly, it does not mention political parties at all. The Constitution also skirts the issue of slavery, counting each slave as three-fifths of a person in determining representation in Congress. Additionally, it does not include the concept of the presumption of innocence, and it does not state that the US is a free country. These examples highlight the importance of understanding what is and is not included in the Constitution when discussing legal and political proposals.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Judicial review | Not mentioned in the Constitution, but is common in the current legal system |
| Number of seats in the House of Representatives | The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the number of seats |
| Paper money | Not mentioned in the Constitution, but Congress has the power to "coin money" |
| Political parties | Not mentioned in the Constitution |
| Presumption of innocence | Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but is considered common law |
| "A free country" | Not mentioned in the Constitution |
| "Jury of my peers" | Not mentioned in the Constitution |
| Martial law | Not mentioned in the Constitution |
Explore related products
$8.95 $8.95
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution does not mention 'martial law' or 'law martial'
- The Constitution does not mention political parties
- The President has no role in proposing amendments to the Constitution
- The Constitution does not mention judicial review
- The concept of the presumption of innocence is not codified in the Constitution
The US Constitution does not mention 'martial law' or 'law martial'
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention the terms "martial law" or "law martial". However, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times in limited, usually local areas of the United States. It has been declared in response to war or invasion, domestic war or insurrection, civil unrest, natural disasters, and labour disputes.
Martial law refers to the emergency power that allows the military to supersede civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over a particular area during a crisis. Laws are enforced by soldiers, and policy decisions are made by military officers. The accused are tried by military tribunals instead of civilian courts.
The US Constitution does mention the suspension of habeas corpus, which is a key aspect of martial law. Habeas corpus refers to the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This clause is often taken as shorthand for martial law, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
While the US Constitution does not grant the President the power to unilaterally declare martial law, it does give the federal government as a whole the authority to protect states against invasion and domestic violence. The Posse Comitatus Act also forbids US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
Constitution and Illegal Aliens: What's the Legal Stand?
You may want to see also
The Constitution does not mention political parties
Political parties are a fundamental part of the US political system today. However, the Constitution does not mention political parties. This is despite the fact that they play a significant role in the US government. Political parties began to emerge with disputes over the ratification of the Constitution, with the first two parties being known as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The absence of any reference to political parties in the Constitution is notable, especially considering that other concepts not mentioned in the Constitution, such as the presumption of innocence, are still considered common law. The Constitution also skirts around the issue of slavery, counting each slave as three-fifths of a person in determining representation in Congress.
The emergence of political parties can be traced back to the early days of the republic, with George Washington specifically warning against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" in his farewell address in 1796. Despite this, political parties became a permanent fixture of American elections soon after Washington retired from office. One of the earliest examples of the influence of political parties is the practice of redistricting, where incumbents would draw the boundaries of their congressional districts to maintain their power. This practice was dubbed "gerrymandering" after Elbridge Gerry, one of the signers of the Constitution, who created an oddly-shaped district in Massachusetts to favour his party.
While the Constitution does not address political parties directly, the activities of political parties are protected under the First Amendment. Political parties can assert their freedom of association, giving them the right to decide on membership and how they conduct their internal affairs. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled on cases involving political parties, such as Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party (1997), which upheld a Minnesota law barring a candidate from one political party from appearing on the ballot for another party.
Exploring Title VII: Constitutional Rights in the Workplace
You may want to see also
The President has no role in proposing amendments to the Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is a document that serves as the foundation of the country's legal and governmental system. It outlines the rights and responsibilities of the federal government and the states, and it establishes the structure and powers of the three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. While the Constitution is a comprehensive document, there are certain aspects that are not specifically addressed within it.
One such aspect is the role of the President in proposing amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution does not establish a formal role for the President in this process. According to Article V of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress, with a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses, to propose amendments. Alternatively, Congress may call for a Convention for proposing amendments upon the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. In either case, for an amendment to become a valid part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
While the President does not have a direct role in proposing amendments, there have been instances where Presidents have played a ministerial role in the amendment process. For example, President George Washington sent the first twelve proposed amendments, including what would become the Bill of Rights, to the states for ratification after they were approved by Congress. Additionally, President Abraham Lincoln signed the joint resolution proposing the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. However, it is important to note that his signature was not required for the proposal or ratification of the amendment.
The Supreme Court has further clarified the role of the President in the amendment process. In the 1920 case of Hawke v. Smith, the Court affirmed that the submission of a constitutional amendment does not require the action of the President. This was also evident in the earlier case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia from 1798, where the Court held that the President "has nothing to do with the proposition". These rulings reinforce the understanding that the President's role in proposing amendments is not constitutionally mandated.
In conclusion, while the President may have played a minor role in certain instances of the amendment process, it is not a formal or constitutionally established role. The power to propose amendments rests with Congress or, upon their initiative, a Convention of states. This separation of powers highlights the checks and balances inherent in the US constitutional system, ensuring that no single branch of government has undue influence over the amendment process.
The Constitution's Opposition: Overcoming the Divide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution does not mention judicial review
The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly mention judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or the United States Constitution. It is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, allowing the Supreme Court to ensure that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution.
The absence of an explicit mention of judicial review in the Constitution is notable, given its significant role in the US legal system. However, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution, specifically from Article III and Article VI. These articles relate to the federal judicial power and state that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as established by Congress.
The concept of judicial review has a long history in English common law and was affirmed during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. This case established the principle that the Supreme Court could strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional. The first American decision to recognize the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor.
While the Constitution does not expressly grant federal courts the power to declare government actions unconstitutional, it is important to note that the idea of judicial review was discussed during the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions. Many delegates, including James Wilson, asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. However, there was some opposition to the concept, with Mr. Mercer expressing disapproval of judges having the authority to declare a law void.
In conclusion, while the Constitution does not explicitly mention judicial review, it has been inferred from the structure and provisions of the document, and it has become a fundamental aspect of the US legal system, with the Supreme Court playing a crucial role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution.
Strict Constructionism: The Constitution's Textual Integrity
You may want to see also
The concept of the presumption of innocence is not codified in the Constitution
The United States Constitution is a document that serves as the supreme law of the land, outlining the rights and responsibilities of the government and its citizens. It is a foundational text that establishes the nation's governing principles and sets forth the framework for the US political system. While the Constitution is a comprehensive document, there are certain concepts that are not explicitly mentioned within its text. One such concept is the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law that asserts that an individual accused of a crime is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle places the burden of proof on the prosecution, requiring them to present compelling evidence to establish the accused's guilt. While this concept is deeply ingrained in the US legal system, it is notable that the exact phrase "presumption of innocence" or "innocent until proven guilty" is not explicitly codified in the text of the US Constitution.
The absence of this phrase from the Constitution does not diminish its importance or legal standing. The presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Additionally, the Sixth Amendment requires an impartial jury in criminal trials, further reinforcing the fairness and objectivity of the judicial process.
While not explicitly stated, the concept of the presumption of innocence is implicitly embodied in several provisions of the Constitution. For example, the right to remain silent, protected by the Fifth Amendment, is closely tied to the presumption of innocence as it allows individuals to avoid self-incrimination. Similarly, the right to a jury trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, ensures that the determination of guilt is made by an impartial group of peers, rather than solely by the prosecution.
In conclusion, while the exact phrase "presumption of innocence" is not found within the US Constitution, the principle it embodies is deeply rooted in the nation's legal system. Through Supreme Court decisions, the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and other constitutional protections, the presumption of innocence is recognized as a fundamental right of those accused of crimes in the United States. This example illustrates how certain principles can be considered part of the country's legal framework, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
No Crisis Here: Navigating Challenges Calmly
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the terms "martial law" or "law martial" are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, a key aspect of martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus, is included.
No, the "presumption of innocence" is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, it is embodied in several provisions, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.
No, the Constitution does not guarantee a trial by a jury of one's peers. While it does address juries, it does not specify the nature of the jury.
No, the Constitution does not directly mention paper money. It gives Congress the power to "coin money" and prohibits states from issuing "bills of credit", but there is no mention of paper money.
