Six Basic Principles of the Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

SIX BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION Unit 1 Popular Sovereignty • Government can govern only with the consent of the governed. • Sovereign people created the Constitution and the government. Limited Government • Government may do only those things that people have given it the power to do. • The government and its officers are always subject to the law. 1 Separation of Powers • The Constitution distributes the powers of the National Government among Congress (legislative branch), the President (executive branch), and the courts (judicial branch). • The Framers of the Constitution created a separation of powers in order to limit the powers of the government and to prevent tyranny—too much power in the hands of one person or a few people. Checks & Balances • Each branch of government was subject to a number of constitutional restraints by the other branches • Although there have been instances of spectacular clashes between branches, usually the branches of government restrain themselves as they attempt to achieve their goals. Judicial Review • Through the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), the judicial branch possesses the power to determine the constitutionality of an action of the government. • In most cases the judiciary has supported the constitutionality of government acts; but in more than 130 cases, the courts have found congressional acts to be unconstitutional, and they have voided thousands of acts of State and local governments. 2 Federalism • Federalism is the division of political power between a central government and several regional governments. • United States federalism originated in American rebellion against the edicts of a distant central government in England. • Federalism is a compromise between a strict central government and a loose confederation, such as that provided for in the Articles of Confederation. 3.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

"Sovereignty" in National League of Cities V. Usery*
States' Rights and States' Roles: Permutations of "Sovereignty" in National League of Cities v. Usery* Frank I. Michelmant A share of the blame for what follows belongs to Mr. Justice Brennan, whose twenty years of distinguished labor on behalf of our constitutional system-on behalf, I should say, of the men, women, and children whose rights and concerns that system serves-this journal justly celebrates. It was the Justice who, by his striking and powerful dissent in National League of Cities v. Usery (NLC),1 first made me think there must be even more to that case than meets the eye. His opinion is remarkable for its depth of feeling, its sense of occasion, of foreboding, of fatal and momentous choice. The eloquence is disciplined and surgical-not so sweepingly flamboyant as, say, the impassioned Frank- furter's, 2 but as stirring. The opinion speaks with a controlled intensity that at first seems disconsonant with both the immediate impact of the Court's decision (denial of congressional minimum-wage protection to state and municipal employees) and its broader doctrinal significance (recognition of some state governmental immunity from congressional regulation under the commerce clause). Both developments, to be sure, are important. But it seems unlikely that the immediate impact taken by itself-if, say, it had resulted from a disputable statutory 0 This article has a kinship with Professor Laurence Tribe's article, Tribe, Unraveling National League of Cities: The New Federalism and Affirmative Rights to Essential Government Services, 90 HAV. L. REv. 1065 (1977). Our two efforts are to a considerable extent overlapping in content and perception, yet also marked by significant differences in aim, approach, and argumentation.
[Show full text]
Splitting Sovereignty: the Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States
Splitting Sovereignty: The Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States JAMES T. KNIGHT II* ABSTRACT From the moment the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended and the Framers presented their plan to ªform a more perfect Union,º people have debated what form of government that union established. Had the thirteen sepa- rate states surrendered their independence to form a new state stretching from New England to Georgia, or was their individual sovereignty preserved as in the Articles of Confederation? If the states remained sovereign in some respect, what did that mean for the new national government? I propose that the original Constitution would have been viewed as establish- ing a federation of independent, sovereign states. The new federation possessed certain limited powers delegated to it by the states, but it lacked a broad power to legislate for the general welfare and the protection of individual rights. This power, termed ªthe legislative powerº by Enlightenment thinkers, was viewed as the essential, identifying power of a sovereign state under the theoretical framework of eighteenth-century political philosophy. The state constitutions adopted prior to the national Constitutional Convention universally gave their governments this broad legislative power rather than enumerate speci®c areas where the government could legislate. Of the constitutional documents adopted prior to the federal Constitution, only the Articles of Confederation provides such an enumeration. In this note, I argue that, against the background of political theory and con- stitutional precedent, a government lacking the full legislative power would not have been viewed as sovereign in its own right.
[Show full text]
Consent of the Government Gives Power To
Consent Of The Government Gives Power To Mike body his spherocytes oxygenizing expertly or irenically after Roy replanning and manducate resistively, slab-sided and unmaintained. Undescended Putnam digitized, his dialing Africanizing dieted dispassionately. Guiltlessly bold-faced, Giff unshackling versts and warn acropolises. For disease control for example, as acting governor declaring incapacity during the power to websites and procedure specific requirements that purpose in relation to be Chief financial stranglehold on such measures in the president of such term being, then the to consent of the government power? The state and gives the consent government of power to the sentence has endeavoured to the general, and the governor may. Barring the federal government from splitting up east state without the direction of its. Vienna Convention Law Treaties. According to the Declaration of Independence the government gets its red from her people it governs The exact language it uses in getting second stick is deriving their just Powers from broad Consent which the Governed This controversy that unite people time to be governed. President elect one month of government of the consent power to make an advance health legal status in a law shall be in evidence. He profit from time machine time reward to the Congress Information of my State enterprise the. Consent Giving permission to strand health services or giving permission to. Consent procedure the governed American citizes are the source means all governmental. Provisions in the Constitution that survive him that power would he didn't name any. The consent all the governed constitutional amendment Core. Opinion piece the Declaration of Independence Said and.
[Show full text]
Highlights from July 4Th 2009 at the National Archives
Highlights from July 4th 2009 at the National Archives The National Archives celebrated the 233rd anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Hosted by NBC News National Correspondent Bob Dotson, the program featured welcoming remarks by Acting Archivist of the United States Adrienne Thomas, a keynote address by Timothy Naftali, Director of the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, and our annual dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence. BOB DOTSON: I'm Bob Dotson from the NBC "Today" show, the host of a segment called "The American Story." For the last 3 decades, I have wandered around this country coaxing stories from people like us, the folks who don't have time to send out press releases because they're too busy reshaping the world as they hope it should be-the dreamers and the doers like the men and women who gave us the reason to celebrate the fourth of July today. So, thank you for joining us on this very special day in this very special place. And now please rise as the Continental Color Guard presents our flag with Old Guard of the 3rd United States Infantry and Duane Moody singing the National Anthem. DUANE MOODY: [SINGING] O say, can you see By the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed At the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes And bright stars Through the perilous fight O'er the ramparts we watched Were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare The bombs bursting in air Gave proof through the night That our flag was still there O! Say does that Star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free And the home of the brave? ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps.
[Show full text]
All Men Are Created Equal
1776 All Men are Created Equal Kimberly Waite, MTI, Barringer Fellow, 2014 The speed of travel was three miles per hour. 1776 Kimberly Waite, MTI, Barringer Fellow, 2014 • Jane Austen was a one year old baby. • Mary Wollstonecraft was 17. • Voltaire was 82. • John Locke died 72 years before. • Montesquieu was 21. • It was 7 years before Símon Bolívar would be born in Carcas. • It was 33 years before Abraham Lincoln would be born. • It was 153 years before Martin Luther King would be born. In 1776 Kimberly Waite, MTI, Barringer Fellow, 2014 • There were 539,000 slaves in the British colonies. • Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. • Edward Gibbon published the first volume of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. • Twenty-year-old Mozart composed Haffner Serenade. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpIvjctOqbY) • Beethoven was 6. In 1776 Kimberly Waite, MTI, Barringer Fellow, 2014 • In the whole world, there was no democracy. • England and France were ruled by kings. • Frederick the Great was the Hohensollern King of Prussia and Catherine the Great, 47 years old, had been the Czarina of Russia for 14 years. • China was ruled by an emperor and Japan by a Shogun. • In Europe kings had been said to rule by divine right as the chosen of God. • San Francisco was founded by Spain, which was ruled by King Charles III. • North America was the territory of France, Spain, and England which was the superpower of the world. • There had never been a president and Washington, D.C. was a nameless swamp filled with mosquitos.
[Show full text]
A Puzzle of Sovereignty CALIFORNIA WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
Lee: A Puzzle of Sovereignty CALIFORNIA WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 27 SPRING 1997 NUMBER 2 A PUZZLE OF SOVEREIGNTY STEVEN LEE* Sovereignty either is or is not. -Stephen Leacock' The subject of the sovereignty of the nation-state presents a puzzle. On the one hand, the notion of state sovereignty figures importantly in our descriptions of, and our prescriptions for, global political change. For example, a natural characterization of the political changes in Eastern Europe preceding and following the demise of the Soviet Union is that a number of political communities have vigorously and often successfully asserted claims to sovereignty. More generally, most of the events in the world political arena are naturally understood as the sovereign actions of states. In addition, many complain that sovereignty stands in the way of solutions to many of the world's most pressing problems and ought to be abandoned, thereby implying that it remains a reality. Thus, the notion of sovereignty continues to apply to the realities of international political life and retains its explanatory efficacy. Against this is the claim that, as a result of the contemporary realities of global affairs, sovereignty has become irrelevant, an anachronistic notion. What is meant is not that sovereignty ought to be abandoned, that it is, as it were, normatively irrelevant (though this claim is often made as well), but rather that it has already ceased to exist. On this view, there are factors that have drained states of their sovereignty by depriving them of the ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the negative effects of the actions of other states or outside groups.
[Show full text]
Active Sovereignty Timothy Zick William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Active Sovereignty Timothy Zick William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Zick, Timothy, "Active Sovereignty" (2007). Faculty Publications. 95. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/95 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs ACTIVE SOVEREIGNTY TIMOTHY ZICK* INTRODUCTION If there was something "revolutionary" about the recent federalism era, it was the manner in which the Court spoke of the states.! When they entered the Union, the states were sometimes referred to as mere corporate forms. 2 In recent federalism precedents, by contrast, the Rehnquist Court routinely referred to the states as "sovereign."3 The Court bathed the states in sovereign glory, inveighing against various federal insults to the states' "dignity," "esteem," and "respect." 4 The states are treated now more like nations or persons; they have * Associate Professor of Law, St. John's University School of Law. I would like to thank John Barrett, Chris Borgen, Brian Tamanaha, and Nelson Tebbe for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank the participants at the "Federalism Past, Federalism Future" symposium, and the editors and staff of St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary. 1 See Stephen G. Gey, The Myth of State Sovereignty, 63 OHIO ST. L.J. 1601, 1601 (2002) (asserting that we are "in the midst of a constitutional revolution"). For reasons stated later, I believe "revolution" overstates matters; this Essay will refer to the "revival" of federalism.
[Show full text]
85(R) Hr 2021
By:AAWilson H.R.ANo.A2021 RESOLUTION 1 WHEREAS, The observance of American Family Reunion Days from 2 July 1 to 4, 2017, provides an opportunity to celebrate the timeless 3 values on which our nation was founded; and 4 WHEREAS, In 1776, the Second Continental Congress convened in 5 Philadelphia on July 1 to deliberate over a break from tyranny; the 6 following day, the committee of the whole voted in favor of the 7 Resolution for Independence offered by Richard Henry Lee of 8 Virginia; this document declared "that these United Colonies are, 9 and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are 10 absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all 11 political connection between them and the State of Great Britain 12 is, and ought to be, totally dissolved"; and 13 WHEREAS, On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted 14 the Declaration of Independence, written largely by Thomas 15 Jefferson, with the assistance of John Adams and Ben Franklin; the 16 famous preamble states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; 17 that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their 18 Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, 19 liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, 20 governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers 21 from the consent of the governed"; and 22 WHEREAS, Today, citizens continue to treasure the 23 inalienable rights they enjoy as members of the American family, 24 and by marking the anniversary of a tremendous milestone in the 85R27935 BPG-D 1 H.R.ANo.A2021 1 history of democracy and of our nation, we reaffirm our 2 centuries-long commitment to freedom; now, therefore, be it 3 RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 85th Texas 4 Legislature hereby recognize July 1 through 4, 2017, as American 5 Family Reunion Days.
[Show full text]
Declaration of Independence
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 —————————— THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
[Show full text]
Articles of Confederation (1777) Declaration of Independence (1776
Name ______________________________________ Block ________________ The U.S. Constitution is founded on concepts written in earlier documents and based on the 5 fundamental principles CONSTITUTION Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) Articles of Confederation (1777) Declaration of Independence (1776) Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) Charters of the Virginia Company (1607) Rule of Law Limited Government Democracy Consent of the Governed Representative Government Anticipation guide Founding Documents Vocabulary Amend Constitution Independence Repeal Colony Affirm Grievance Ratify Unalienable Rights Confederation Charter Delegate Guarantee Declaration Colonist Reside Territory (land) politically controlled by another country A person living in a settlement/colony Written document granting land and authority to set up colonial governments To make a powerful statement that is official Freedom from the control of others A complaint Freedoms that everyone is born with and cannot be taken away (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness) To promise To vote to approve To change Representatives/elected officials at a meeting A group of individuals or states who band together for a common purpose To verify that something is true To cancel a law To stay in a place A written plan of government Foundations of American Democracy Across 1. Territory politically controlled by another country 2. To vote to approve 4. Freedom from the control of others 5. Representatives/elected officials at a meeting 8. A complaint 10. To verify that something is true 11. To make a powerful statement that is official 12. To cancel a law 13. To stay in a place 14. A written plan of government Down 1. A group of individuals or states who band together for a common purpose 3.
[Show full text]
A Genealogy of State Sovereignty
Theoretical Inquiries399 in Law 16.2 (2015) A Genealogy of State Sovereignty Lorenzo Zucca* A genealogical account of state sovereignty explores the ways in which the concept has emerged, evolved, and is in decline today. Sovereignty has a theological foundation, and is deeply bound up with the idea of God, in particular a voluntarist God, presented as being capable of intervening directly in the world. Religious conflicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries forced the separation between religion and politics, and opened the space for the emergence of a national state endowed with sovereignty which has dominated the world until now. Today’s rise of international and transnational obligations challenges the conventional understanding of state sovereignty, which cannot account for the normative density of the global order and the corresponding decline of state-based political authority. In order to explain that, I contrast two competing understandings of state sovereignty: a static one and a dynamic one. The static understanding regards sovereignty as absolute within the state territory. The dynamic understanding regards sovereignty as evolutionary: according to this account, the state is just one possible form that sovereignty can take. I conclude by suggesting that the dynamic understanding of state sovereignty is better suited to explaining the decline of state sovereignty. INTRODUCTION In the beginning there was no national state. Perhaps we need not go so far back for the proposition to be true. In the middle ages, there was no national state. Instead, there was competition between the Empire and the Church, both vying for political authority. Needless to say, the protagonist of this conflict is God; what is at stake is not its existence, but its willingness to interfere in world matters.
[Show full text]
Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Locus of Constituent Power in The
Extract2=HeadB=Extract=HeadB Extract2=HeadA=Extract=HeadA Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA © The Author(s) 2021. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Extract3=HeadB=Extract1=HeadB BList1=SubBList1=BList1=SubBList BList1=SubBList3=BList1=SubBList2 SubBList1=SubSubBList3=SubBList1=SubSubBList2 SubSubBList3=SubBList=SubSubBList=SubBList Parliamentary sovereignty and SubSubBList2=SubBList=SubSubBList=SubBList SubBList2=BList=SubBList=BList the locus of constituent power in HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/4/1166/6156765 by guest on 29 September 2021 HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB the United Kingdom HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Alan Greene* REV_HeadA=REV_HeadB=REV_HeadA=REV_HeadB/HeadA REV_HeadB=REV_HeadC=REV_HeadB=REV_HeadC/HeadB REV_HeadC=REV_HeadD=REV_HeadC=REV_HeadD/HeadC REV_Extract3=REV_HeadA=REV_Extract1=REV_HeadA BOR_HeadA=BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadA=BOR_HeadB/HeadA This article argues that parliamentary sovereignty’s assimilation of constituent power—the ul- BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadB=BOR_HeadC/HeadB timate power in a legal order to create and posit a constitution—has stultified the development BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadD=BOR_HeadC=BOR_HeadD/HeadC of British constitutional law. The result is a deeply ideological, as distinct from oft-heralded prag- BOR_Extract3=BOR_HeadA=BOR_Extract1=BOR_HeadA matic, constitutional structure that is incapable of confronting the systemic challenges the United SAC_HeadA=SAC_HeadB=SAC_HeadA=SAC_HeadB/HeadA Kingdom currently faces. By conceptualizing a more antagonistic relation between the Crown SAC_HeadB=SAC_HeadC=SAC_HeadB=SAC_HeadC/HeadB in Parliament and “the people” by questioning the democratic credentials of the former, this ar- SAC_HeadC=SAC_HeadD=SAC_HeadC=SAC_HeadD/HeadC ticle contends that the UK constitutional order can be reinvigorated.
[Show full text]