- In all governments there is a perpetual intestine struggle, open or secret, between AUTHORITY and LIBERTY; and neither of them can ever absolutely prevail in the contest. A great sacrifice of liberty must necessarily be made in every government; yet even the authority, which confines liberty, can never, and perhaps ought never, in any constitution, to become quite entire and uncontroulable. * * * In this sense, it must be owned, that liberty is the perfection of civil society; but still authority must be acknowledged essential to its very existence * * *.
- It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Constitutional Liberty 110 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The refutation of this constitutional question seems to be suggested in its restatement to ask: whether Congress can pass a statute to make some governmental action constitutional after the Supreme Court has ruled it to be unconstitutional or whether Congress can pass a statute to make some governmental action unconstitutional after the Supreme Court has ruled it to be constitutional? But to master constitutional analysis one must become accustomed to analyzing the obvious.
- Finally, the analytical fallacy in the definition of obscenity is antecedent and fundamental. The Supreme Court’s obscenity standard puts the questions in reverse. The Supreme Court majority first assumes that the category of obscene speech is unprotected speech and then the majority attempts to define what is obscene under a juror-determined community standard. But labeling a publication “obscene” is a conclusion, not constitutional analysis. The Supreme Court seems to be trying to avoid the reality that every incident of regulating obscenity raises a constitutional issue under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. The constitutionality of the regulation must be faced in those terms. The constitutional analysis cannot be avoided. Labeling something “obscene” can be justified only as the statement of the result after that essential constitutional analysis has been undertaken and performed. Under the I–R–A–C approach of Issue–Rule–Analysis–Conclusion, declaring that
- The most basic question of constitutional law is whether the challenged governmental action deprives the individual of constitutional liberty and thus lies beyond the constitutional powers of government. Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis). Does the challenged action fall on the liberty side of the constitutional line? The constitutional analysis of this irreducible question is depicted in our basic Williams diagram:
- This discussion of constitutional law and constitutional facts leads to the further conclusion that the Supreme Court was mistaken to assign this responsibility for constitutional analysis to the jury in cases involving obscenity. That it was mistaken is suggested, in fact, by the Supreme Court’s own subsequent case law, as we shall see.
- If these early views of the respective roles of the Supreme Court and the Congress had prevailed, there would be no question that the definition of the scope of the individual liberties would primarily be in the hands of Congress rather than in the hands of the courts. This seems strange, even preposterous to us. Fastforwarding through the constitutional analysis and constitutional history already described in Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis), our modern understanding of the central role of the courts to define and protect individual liberty was proclaimed by Justice Jackson:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Constitutional Theory 93 results (showing 5 best matches)
- One technique that the Supreme Court regularly used during all three eras in a variety of areas is “balancing.” The metaphor is borrowed from the blindfolded goddess of justice holding a set of scales to weigh the opposing claims to decide a dispute. Balancing two constitutional values in conflict, as when the Court balances an individual’s right to associate against a group’s right not to associate with the individual, is one form. Chapter 4, § 5 (Competing Constitutional Liberties). Another form of the metaphor is to balance individual liberty versus government power, which is the primary issue for constitutional analysis depicted in the Williams diagram. Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis). But balancing can amount to little more than a conclusion or a stated preference: “we find in favor of the individual and against the government” does not reveal much analysis. It is an intellectual sleight of hand to divert our attention. Taking the metaphor literally, we would carefully...
- The purpose of the use of our Williams diagram in our constitutional analysis has been to develop a better understanding of the questions and a mastery of the answers for constitutional law issues. Our constitutional analysis has become second nature by now. For the most part—and most importantly—constitutional analysis involves the tension between individual liberty versus government power. Chapter 4 (Constitutional Liberty). Individual liberty and government power exist in a zero-sum ratio, more liberty for the individual means less power for the government, and less liberty for the individual means more power for the government. The Judicial Branch stands as the great guardian of our civil liberties and civil rights by exercising its power of judicial review to interpret the Constitution in the course of deciding cases or controversies. The Supreme Court occupies the apex of the Third Branch and performs the role of ultimate and final constitutional court.
- A brief verbal summary of our constitutional analysis fits into this last Chapter on constitutional theory. Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis). Imagine you are in the constitutional law examination or writing a seminar paper. Imagine you are working on your law review note. Imagine you are taking the bar exam. Imagine that you have graduated and passed the bar, and you now are a practicing attorney representing a client and presenting a case in court. You are going to begin your brief or your oral argument: “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court, now you see we start off with this great big box which contains all the governmental power there is. Then we saw off a large portion of that box—take those powers away from the government—and those are by definition individual constitutional liberties * * * ” and so on!
- For some constitutional issues, balancing is required by the text itself as, for example, the Fourth Amendment that forbids only “unreasonable” searches and seizures or the Eighth Amendment that prohibits “excessive fines” and “cruel and unusual punishments.” Many justices generalize this balancing technique to prefer standards, as opposed to rules, for deciding constitutional cases. An example of a standard is “drive at a safe speed,” and an example of a rule is “do not exceed 55 m.p.h.” (1992). Justice O’Connor is fond of totality-of-the-circumstance analysis applying a standard like whether a statute interferes “too much” with the Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Scalia has mocked balancing to say that “the scale analogy is not really appropriate, since the interests on both sides are incommensurate. It is more like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy.” , 486 U.S. 888, 897 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring). Our constitutional
- . The Constitution is something different and apart from constitutional law. This is illustrated in a backwards way by the perhaps apocryphal story told about a leading constitutional law professor at Harvard at the beginning of the 20th century, Thomas Reed Powell, who supposedly was fond of telling his students, “Never, ever read the Constitution because it will only serve to confuse you.” Most teachers and students of constitutional law spend most of their time together analyzing Supreme Court opinions and talking about Court precedents or doctrines, , past interpretations of the Constitution that seem to promise coherent and consistent answers in later cases. Indeed, maybe it is a good idea in this Chapter on Constitutional Theory to remind the reader once again that there is still plenty of constitutional law that must be learned and mastered. Indeed, there are so many rules and doctrines that there is a market for student aids like N ..., levels of scrutiny, tiers of analysis...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Government Powers 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This brief summary oversimplifies a rather complex area of constitutional law. But for present purposes it is enough to note the similarities and the differences in the constitutional analysis under the dormant or negative Commerce Clause of state taxes and state regulations. A discriminatory state tax on interstate commerce, like a discriminatory state regulation, is very likely to be struck down as a violation of the dormant or negative Commerce Clause. A state tax is analyzed under the four-part test summarized in this Section, not under the two level balancing analysis applicable to state regulations that was summarized earlier in this Chapter in the discussion of the Dormant or Negative Commerce Power. The doctrinal test for taxes is different from the doctrinal test for regulations, although there is something of a family resemblance. Finally, congressional approval will save a state tax that otherwise would be invalid under the dormant or negative Commerce Clause, just as...
- For purposes of our constitutional analysis, the basic content of the residual state government powers in our Williams diagram follows upon our two fundamental inquiries. Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis). First, we take away the individual liberty and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That balance of individual liberty versus government power was the subject of the last Chapter. Chapter 4 (Constitutional Liberty). Second, we take away the enumerated and delegated powers of the federal government, a national government limited in its objects but supreme within its sphere—and consequently we divest the states of some of their original powers. It is this balance between federal power and state power that is the subject of this Chapter on Government Powers. What is left in the state government power portion of our Williams diagram is the state police power as modulated by the Constitution:
- The purpose of this thought exercise with these two hypotheticals is to make you aware of the constitutional analysis of any case when it contains both a substantial liberty issue and a distribution of government power issue, as did the case of government could engage in this regulation, you are separating and isolating the distribution of governmental powers question from the individual liberty question. Likewise, you will better understand the essential nature of whatever constitutional doubts you have with respect to a particular statute.
- In our constitutional analysis, therefore, for a treaty to be valid we must answer the liberty versus government power question in favor of government power. The vertical line between individual liberty and government power remains constant. Turning then to the subject of this Chapter, however, the federal treaty power can be exercised to increase federal powers and to diminish state powers, , the horizontal line separating federal and state powers can be moved. This can be drawn in our Williams diagram:
- How far can Congress go? As we have seen, ultimately, that is up to the Supreme Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review. As Justice Black once explained, “whether particular operations affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come under the constitutional power of Congress to regulate them is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question, and can be settled finally only by this Court.” , 379 U.S. 241, 273 (1964) (Black, J., concurring). Congress has demonstrated a willingness to push the envelope of its Commerce Clause power and the Supreme Court generally has acquiesced. The Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down particular federal statutes that in the opinion of the Justices do not substantially affect commerce or the economy, leaving those subjects to the police power of the states. The constitutional analysis may be depicted in our Williams diagram:
- Open Chapter
Appendix A. Leading Case Outline of Constitutional Liberty 156 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Constitutional liberty and government power usually exist in a zero-sum ratio: more government power results in less individual liberty and more individual liberty results in less government power. This is the perpetual dilemma of our constitutionalism: how to empower the government sufficiently to perform its essential tasks and, at the same time, how to limit it from overreaching the individual. This is the constitutional analysis of the Williams diagram.
- . Substantive due process has a fundamental rights version that calls for the strong form of judicial review. If a statute burdens the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, like the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated, then the due process analysis requires that the statute be narrowly-tailored to promote a compelling government interest. This strong form of substantive due process review was first associated with a non-textual right of privacy, derived from the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights. Under this analysis, the Court upheld the constitutional right to obtain information and access , 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Eventually, the Court would re-think this justification and relocate the textual anchor for the right of privacy in the Due Process Clause protection of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the basis for the constitutional protection of personal autonomy to obtain an abortion.
- In , 475 U.S. 767, 775 (1986), the Court provided a two-step sequence of questions to sort through the constitutional analysis: (1) is the plaintiff a public official or a public figure? and (2) is the speech itself a matter of public concern? If the answer to both questions is affirmative, then constitutional malice and falsity must be proven. If the answer to the first question is negative but the answer to the second question is affirmative, then at least negligence and falsity must be proven. If the answer to both questions is negative, then state tort law is controlling.
- ., to define and protect individual liberty against government power. This Appendix keeps the promise made in Chapter 4, § 2 (Constitutional Law Doctrines) to provide a leading case outline of Supreme Court precedents dealing with constitutional liberty. The holdings and doctrines highlighted here define civil rights and civil liberties under the Constitution—these cases give content and meaning to individual liberty in our Williams diagram. The reader should be reminded that the theme of individual liberty also played a prominent role in Chapter 2 (Judicial Review), Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis), and Chapter 4 (Constitutional Liberty). Those chapters and this Appendix correspond to the topics in the typical “Constitutional Law II” law school course.
- Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis). The leading Supreme Court decisions about establishing the national government and controlling the relationship between the national government and the states are discussed in considerable detail and depth in Chapter 5 (Government Powers) and Chapter 6 (Structure of the Constitution). The perpetuation-of-government function is the subject of Chapter 1, § 11 (Amendments). Those discussions will not be repeated here. Thus, for a full appreciation of the leading Supreme Court precedents for those other aspects of constitutional law—which are covered in the typical “Constitutional Law I” law school course—the reader should refer to those designated chapters. Students enrolled in a stand-alone “Constitutional Law” course or some advanced elective course are obliged to match topics covered in their particular course with the relevant chapters here. Again, this Outline emphasizes only the leading Supreme Court cases dealing with individual liberty.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 3 results
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- West, a Thomson business, has created this publication to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered. However, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. West is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- © 2003 By West, a Thomson business
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Constitutional Analysis 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Virtually all constitutional issues involving individual liberty are subject to this simple representation, although the decision in many cases is a difficult and complex one that is not easily predicted by the Williams diagram. The purpose of this simplified analysis is not to suggest that constitutional decision-making is simple and easy. Rather, the purpose of the Williams diagram is to better understand the essential nature of constitutional decision-making, , what constitutional interests are being balanced and how the balancing affects those interests.
- This hypothetical demonstrates how a case nearly always involves both basic constitutional issues but the second issue of distribution of power between state and federal governments is pertinent only if the first issue is decided in favor of government power as against individual liberty. These two questions follow in logical sequence. This is why we always begin our constitutional analysis by first balancing constitutional freedom or individual liberty against government power.
- Sometimes it is helpful to posit a hypothetical situation that is extreme and even possibly ridiculous, to better understand the constitutional analysis and to make it more memorable. Let us assume such a situation to see how constitutional issues may arise with respect to both fundamental constitutional questions: (1) the balance of individual liberty versus government power and (2) the distribution of power between the state and federal governments. Suppose that a passed a law requiring that all U.S. coins containing copper and silver be turned in to the state government in exchange for new aluminum alloy U.S. coins of the same denomination. The state’s obvious motive would be to recover the silver and copper from the coins and sell the precious metals as a means of increasing the state treasury.
- Further, the first function, setting up a national government, and the second function, ordering the relationship between that national government and the governments of the states, may be treated together as constituting one of the two major relational aspects of constitutional analysis. Chapter 5 (Government Powers). This leaves the remaining of the four functions as the other major relational aspect of constitutional analysis, namely the protection of individual liberty by limiting and restraining government power. Chapter 4 (Constitutional Liberty).
- To aid in understanding the nature of the fundamental distinction between individual liberty and the exercise of government power and to provide us with a foundation for the rest of constitutional analysis, let us develop a simple imaginary concept which will be used throughout this book—the Williams diagram.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Judicial Review 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- But each and every case has followed a prescribed jurisdictional and procedural path to that moment. Each and every case tells a story about real flesh-and-blood people, a genuine case or controversy over the wrongs they have suffered and the rights they seek to remedy. What the Supreme Court decides will determine the rule in their particular case and settle the general rule of law that is the Constitution for the entire nation. In the next Chapter we will turn our attention to the framework of constitutional analysis that provides the context for resolving these constitutional issues.
- Constitutional issues arise in cases in federal and state trial courts throughout the country. Once a case involving a constitutional issue begins, it follows the established procedures of that court system for all cases. Typically, there is trial and a final judgment followed by one appeal as of right. There is no guarantee, however, that the constitutional issue will be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Our highest Court has a limited jurisdiction and in most instances the discretion whether to hear and decide a case.
- Constitutional issues arise in the interrelations between the government and the individual. A police officer breaks up a demonstration. A city official refuses a parade permit. A public school teacher is fired. A fire fighter is passed over for a promotion. A prisoner challenges the procedures that were followed at the criminal trial. Such are the beginnings of constitutional cases or controversies.
- Third, one of the most significant of the prudential rules of self-restraint in the exercise of judicial review obliges the Supreme Court, in effect, to interpret any congressional statute being challenged in a way that makes it constitutional and valid. Faced with a statute that is ambiguous, as is often the case, the deciding court must chose between a broader interpretation that would make it unconstitutional and invalid versus a narrower interpretation that would render it constitutional and valid. It is obviously better for the administration of justice to chose the narrower interpretation when it is reasonable and appropriate. The Court should not go out of its way to declare statutes unconstitutional. It should not assume that the Congress intended to pass a statute that would be unconstitutional rather than one that would pass constitutional muster. Indeed, the assumption is just the opposite: whenever an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious
- The doctrine of standing in the party raising the constitutional issue basically requires that the party himself or herself have an actual stake in the outcome of the case. Return again to the simple situation of a requirement in a municipal ordinance that a permit must be obtained to hold a meeting in a public park. Suppose we have a well-meaning citizen who believes that meetings should be allowed in public parks without restriction. But this citizen is not planning a meeting in the public park, has never attended a meeting in the public park, and indeed never has used or intends to use that public park for any purpose whatsoever. This citizen is simply someone who believes that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The citizen has no “standing” to raise the constitutional issue concerning the granting of permits for meetings in that public park. The citizen has shown no reason why he or she should be allowed to raise this question. It is simply an abstract question to this... ...a...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. American Constitutionalism 108 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In all this “rights talk,” the Supreme Court must always be mindful of the Madisonian dilemma. Our Constitution demonstrates a profound bias against claims of absoluteness from either side, the individual or the government. It is the genius of American constitutionalism that neither government powers nor individual rights should ever be allowed to reach their logical extreme. Rights and powers coexist in balance and, properly understood, always in tension. Thus, the constitutional relationship between the individual and the government can be described as a zero-sum game. That is the in a nutshell.
- How is it possible to make government more powerful without making those subject to its authority less free? This is the fundamental paradox at the bottom of all constitutional analysis—the irreducible question of American constitutionalism. This paradox explains, in large part, how and why constitutional law issues are so open-ended, forever being reconsidered and reargued, never being fully and finally settled. The relationship between individual liberty and government power, by theoretical and practical necessity, is subtle and complex and is constantly evolving. Internalizing this paradox will go a long way towards mastering constitutional analysis.
- This Chapter provides some background on the Constitution and the foundational principles of American constitutionalism. Read it for the “big picture.” Constitutional analysis ought and does begin with the text. Every student and every interpreter of the Constitution is a documentarian. The complete Constitution appears in the back of this book. Always start with the text. But our study of constitutional law requires some appreciation for the historical and philosophical context of the Constitution.
- Manifestly, no one is in a position to give assurance that the proposed act will withstand constitutional tests. But the situation is so urgent and the benefits of the legislation so evident that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the bill, leaving to the courts, in an orderly fashion, the ultimate question of constitutionality.
- The great powers of nationhood—waging war and making peace, taxing and spending for the general welfare—were assigned to the national government. But many important powers and everyday governmental responsibilities were left to the states. Although the Framers disagreed among themselves and many were uncertain about this division between the national and the state governments, they all fully expected that there would be conflicts over sovereignty and power. Disputes over federalism have figured in critical episodes of our constitutional history, beginning at the Constitutional Convention and continuing to the present day. Indeed, a profound disagreement over federalism principles contributed greatly to the worst cataclysm in our constitutional history, the Civil War. The Supreme Court’s epithet for that crisis was penned three years after the peace of the Appomattox courthouse by Chief Justice Chase: “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Structure of The Constitution 79 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In Chapter 3 (Constitutional Analysis), this book introduced a way of thinking about the Constitution that focuses on the primary relationship of the government with its citizens illustrated by the Williams diagram. Chapter 4 (Constitutional Liberty) examined that relationship from the side of the individual. Chapter 5 (Government Power) examined that relationship from the side of the government. Having thus completed our examination of both sides of the Williams diagram, this Chapter shifts our focus onto the complex interrelationships among government institutions under the Constitution.
- Chapter 2 (Judicial Review) provides a rather detailed account of the Third Branch within the separated powers. Indeed, this entire book is about the federal Judicial Branch, in the sense that our constitutional analysis describes how the Supreme Court goes about exercising its awesome power to interpret the Constitution to guarantee individual liberty and to enforce the limits on government power. Of course, when the Supreme Court plays the role of constitutional referee in a fight between the Congress and the President, it is performing the judicial function within the separation of powers. Likewise, when the Court holds that one or the other coordinate political branches has exceeded that branch’s constitutional limitations, the Court is enforcing the separation of powers. The theme of the proper role of the judiciary within the structure of the separation of powers will be amplified here with annotations to some of the leading cases.
- The dissent, penned by Justice Thomas, took the majority to task for its constitutional analysis. The dissent interpreted the Constitution to express a different Tenth Amendment default: if the text is silent, then there is no bar to action either by the states or by the people. The federal government has only limited and enumerated powers. Each state was delegated the remainder of government powers not retained by the people. It was the people—not the states—that did the reserving and the retaining of powers to the states and to themselves respectively. The dissent interpreted the Qualifications Clauses to establish only the minimum qualifications for election to Congress. The states thus have reserved powers—from the people—to add other qualifications unless the people of that state have retained the right to themselves in their state constitution. The people in the other states thus had no ...constitutional ground to complain about the Arkansas provision being challenged,...
- The Executive Branch has its own set of privileges akin to the Speech and Debate Clause privileges enjoyed by members of Congress. The Constitution conjures a cloak of invisibility for the President, an absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on official acts while in office. Separation of powers provides impeachment and removal as the only constitutional remedy for serious misconduct while in office. , 457 U.S. 731 (1982). But presidential aides enjoy only a qualified immunity that shields them from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. , 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Nonetheless, a President may be forced to answer in a civil case for damages based on conduct that allegedly occurred the President’s term in office and was to any presidential duties—an important matter of timing and a distinction that former constitutional law professor William Jefferson Clinton would come to regret in his second term as...
- Once the President makes and the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land. U.S. Const. art. II § 2 & art. VI. Congress has Necessary and Proper Clause authority to enact enforcement statutes when the treaty is not self-executing by its own terms. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. Congress can enact statutes pursuant to a treaty without regard for the Tenth Amendment and the reserved powers of the states. , 252 U.S. 416 (1920). But neither a treaty nor an enforcing statute can violate the individual rights protected in the Constitution. This is a limitation of our domestic constitutional law; international law norms do not recognize any such limitations on treaty making. Once ratified, a treaty is on the same level of law as a statute, , they are equivalent federal laws of equal regard. Therefore, if there is a conflict between a federal treaty and a federal statute, the constitutional rule of the road is that the later-in-time is controlling. So Congress...
- Open Chapter
Foreword to the Second Edition 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- English legal historian Frederic W. Maitland’s famous characterization of the common law applies in kind to our subject: constitutional law is “tough law.” It is tough to master—tough to teach and tough to learn. This little book will help in our common undertaking to achieve a mastery of constitutional law.
- I have been teaching this subject for more than twenty years at three different law schools. The First Edition of this book helped me as a beginning teacher. A generation of law students relied on it. I undertook this Second Edition to preserve and extend its promise for the next generation. It provides a simple but elegant framework for understanding constitutional analysis.
- The Appendix presents a “Leading Case Outline of Constitutional Liberty.” This is not designed as a general text or a detailed exposition on the subject. But in order to develop an analytical framework and a deeper understanding, a basic outline of the case law is a needed and useful reference.
- Without further attribution, I acknowledge the intellectual debt of borrowing heavily from three text books for the organization, the themes, and some of the content of Chapter 7 (Constitutional Theory): J & T. A A: A R A. S : A A. B , A (2d ed. 1995). Most of the articles referenced in the Chapter are excerpted in the first two readers. Table of Authorities. These three texts are widely-used and I have used them in my own teaching of the basic course and elective courses. If my reader wants to pursue the subject further, these three books will take you a long way toward understanding constitutional theory and philosophy and they also contain extensive reading lists. Michael J. Gerhardt, Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Constitutional Law, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary, and Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., Elvin R. Latty Professor, Duke University School of Law, reviewed this Chapter and I thank them.
- I did not know him well, but he and his First Edition have always been an important part of my constitutional law course. As long as I have been teaching, I have been recommending this book to my students and each Spring Semester I stand at a blackboard and draw what might be called “Williams diagrams”—the constitutional law equivalents of those Venn diagrams we all remember from mathematics classes of overlapping circles depicting number sets relationally. The Williams diagrams always seem to help me explain to my students and always seem to help them to understand the deep structure and subtle nuances of constitutional law.
- Open Chapter
Outline 13 results (showing 5 best matches)
Appendix B. Constitution of The United States of America 130 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice–President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice–President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice–President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from...
- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
- The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in
- No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: August 26th, 2003
- ISBN: 9780314265142
- Subject: Constitutional Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This authoritative text provides a framework for understanding individual liberty and governmental power and the institutional role played by the U.S. Supreme Court. Coverage includes judicial review, commerce clause and state powers, federalism, separation of powers, congressional and executive powers, and individual civil rights and civil liberties. Includes diagrams that aid understanding of the fundamentals of our system of government.