Malcolm Rivera
The United States Constitution, one of the longest-lived and most emulated constitutions in the world, has been violated multiple times in history. The US Constitution was formed after the Revolutionary War, when James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington feared their young country was on the brink of collapse. The Constitution has been violated by several presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's freeze on federal grants and loans
The freeze was seen as a violation of the Constitution, which gives Congress the "power of the purse". While presidents can withhold funds in certain circumstances, they must follow specific procedures, which legal experts argued Trump failed to do. This led to several groups suing to stop the freeze, and a federal judge temporarily blocking the Trump administration's action.
Trump's decision to freeze federal grants and loans was part of a pattern of controversial moves that have been criticised as violating the Constitution and federal law. Legal scholars and historians have pointed to other actions by Trump, such as banning birthright citizenship and firing inspectors general, as examples of his willingness to break the law.
Trump's administration has been accused of undermining the Constitution and making Americans feel less safe. This includes firing public servants, dissolving federal agencies, and taking taxpayer money from communities. Trump has also been criticised for pardoning violent criminals and insurrectionists, as well as removing top officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The freeze on federal grants and loans is just one example of how the Trump administration's actions have had real-world consequences, with stock markets swooning and health clinics shuttering. It remains to be seen whether Trump will be held accountable for his actions and whether public opinion will play a role in addressing his administration's disregard for the law.
Hyperlinking: Infringement or Not?
You may want to see also
Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160, which denied citizenship to persons born to non-US citizen parents if their mother was unlawfully present in the US or if their mother's presence was lawful but temporary. This executive order was met with widespread criticism and was deemed “blatantly unconstitutional” by a federal judge who blocked it.
The executive order was seen as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been interpreted to exclude from birthright citizenship those born in the US but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". However, it has also been consistently understood that those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens at birth.
The ACLU and other organizations filed lawsuits against the executive order, arguing that it was a blatant violation of the Constitution and that birthright citizenship is a pillar of American democracy. The federal court in New Hampshire blocked the order, stating that it was a "wildly unconstitutional bid to end birthright citizenship."
Key Features of the Malayan Union Constitution
You may want to see also
Congress's power to define and punish offences
The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to define and punish offences, particularly those committed on the high seas, or against the Law of Nations. This is outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, which states that Congress has the power:
> "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations".
The Law of Nations is another term for international law, which is a system of rules, standards, and norms that exist between independent countries. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 debated whether Congress should have the authority to define offences against the Law of Nations, and whether the terms "felonies" and "Law of Nations" were too vague to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often vague and indefinite prevailed, and Congress was authorised to define and punish these offences.
This means that Congress has the power to define what the Law of Nations is, and to punish violations of it. This power has been used to justify the punishment of counterfeiting within the United States of notes, bonds, and other securities of foreign governments. It has also been used to outlaw drug trafficking in international waters, and to criminalise overseas assaults by Defence Department foreign contractors.
However, it is important to note that this power does not include the authority to define what constitutes an offence under the Law of Nations. Federal appellate courts have looked to customary international law for explanations of the power over offences against the Law of Nations.
Get SHD Tech in Constitution Hall: Quick Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Broken Law [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61+SYZPaViL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
![Broken Law [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71-ou2LLz+L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The Twenty-second Amendment's two-term limit
The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the number of times a person can be elected to the office of President to twice. It also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors. The Amendment was a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to an unprecedented four terms as president.
The Twenty-second Amendment was approved by Congress on March 21, 1947, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. The process was completed on February 27, 1951, when 36 of the 48 states had ratified the amendment, and its provisions came into force on that date. The Amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected president twice from being elected to office again. It also states that someone who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting more than two years is prohibited from being elected president more than once.
The issue of presidential term limits had long been debated in American politics. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively, along with broader questions such as who would elect the president and the president's role. Many, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, supported lifetime tenure for presidents, while others favoured fixed terms. An early draft of the U.S. Constitution provided that the president was restricted to one seven-year term. Ultimately, the Framers approved four-year terms with no restriction on how many times a person could be elected president.
Following Roosevelt's decision to seek a third term in 1940, and his subsequent reelection campaign in 1944, the issue of presidential tenure became a priority for the 80th Congress when it convened in January 1947. The House of Representatives took quick action, approving a proposed constitutional amendment setting a limit of two four-year terms for future presidents. Roosevelt's health was deteriorating during his fourth term, and he died on April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration.
Understanding Arizona's Hostile Work Environment Laws
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause, when combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause, has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to allow Congress to enact legislation that may not be expressly allowed or denied in the Constitution. This interpretation has been controversial, with some arguing that it contradicts the original intended meaning of the Constitution.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. The Supreme Court has interpreted this broadly, arguing that Congress can regulate any activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. This interpretation has been used to justify federal control over a wide range of economic matters, including business discrimination against customers, drug prohibition laws, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
One example of the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which upheld a ban on the private cultivation of marijuana. The Court held that even non-economic activity could be regulated if it was part of a larger regulatory scheme that clearly regulated interstate commerce. In this case, the Court suggested that Congress's power increases as its regulatory scheme becomes larger and more complex.
Another example is the case of NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), where the Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause did not permit Congress to compel activity, such as the purchase of health insurance under the ACA. The Court stated that this was not the regulation of commercial activity but rather inactivity and was impermissible under the Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court has also used the Commerce Clause to restrict congressional power in some cases. For example, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court invalidated a statute criminalizing handgun possession near schools, arguing that this was an issue for states to handle. The Court has also interpreted the Commerce Clause to mean that Congress can only regulate intrastate activity if it is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme, as seen in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).
In summary, the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to exert significant power over economic matters and has been a source of controversy over the original intent of the Constitution. While the Court has used this interpretation to expand federal power, it has also used it to restrict congressional overreach in certain cases.
The US Constitution: A Living Document
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Franklin D. Roosevelt broke the Twenty-second Amendment by running for a third and fourth term as president.
Trump broke the rule that states that Congress has "the power of the purse."
A federal judge deemed Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship "blatantly unconstitutional."
Trump fired inspectors general without providing notice or rationale to Congress, which was a violation of the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation gave the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states, but it had no enforcement powers, couldn’t regulate commerce, or print money.
