Article I of the Constitution lays out the design of the legislative branches of the US Government. It is broken down into 10 sections with each section having its own set of clauses. Section 8 states that Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. . (US. Constitution, 2015). Article I, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei. This section contains clauses that further expand upon the initial input and specifically has a “Necessary and Proper” or the “Coefficient or …show more content…
The framers of our great nation all had their own interpretation of how the States should run and after many proceedings, debates and ratifications; the Constitution was born. Too many, there are aspects of the law that cannot be understood simply by reading that document. Much of the confusing interpretations to this document are in part because of customs in the early establishments of the States. Additionally, state and federal laws have been filled in due to the absence of details that were left vague or because the meaning of words and phrases have changed over time. Because of this, the Constitution is continually reinterpreted as it is applied to concrete situations. There are numerous methods for interpreting the Constitution. Through the centuries, legal scholars and justices have advocated to fit the needs of specific cases. The most prominent methods include those that rely on textual interpretation, original intent, precedent, constitutional principles, logical reasoning, or the living constitution. Many judges rely on a combination of these methods to reach their decisions. (Constitutional Interpretation, 2015). In American History. Retrieved from …show more content…
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most recent example of how Congress or the President has used, justifying its necessity because of this clause. The entire reading can be found at (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf). Through my research, I stumbled upon a website that detailed the initial tone of the ACA and is a very good example of “Necessary and Proper” language found in the US Constitution. It also demonstrates how Congress and the Supreme Court can make changes in order to facilitate the needs of the law. On Mar 27, 2012 the Supreme Court heard argument on the central issue in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration consistently argued that the individual mandate is essential to the effectiveness of ACA and argued that if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the ban on preexisting conditions, minimum expenditures on health care, and other essential regulatory protections for health insurance consumers must fall with it, as they are inextricably intertwined with the individual mandate. The issue could have also raised fundamental questions regarding our modern federal government. If the Court chose to issue sweeping doctrinal formulations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, or appeals to liberty of contract interests in striking down the individual mandate, the
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
There is much debate in political theory about the definition of a constitution. Generally, it is considered as a “single governing document”. If that is the case, then the U.S. Constitution is the oldest in the world (Berry, 2011). The Framers, upon writing it, aimed to create a document that would stand the test of time. Despite changes in population size, racial and religious components, and even the modern day technology, the objective has clearly been achieved. Elkins claims that this is primarily due to its flexibility. Judicial review interprets the document with the rapidly changing society in mind (as cited in Garza, 2008). Many state constitutions, on the other hand, have not survived as long. Since many have been written with specific people and localities in mind, they have not been able to adapt to change well. Louisiana, for example, has had 11 state constitutions. It is common today, for states to consider overhauling their current constitutions (Morris, Henson, & Fackler, 2011).
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
September 17, 1787, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; during the heat of summer, in a stuffy assembly room of Independence Hall, a group of delegates gathered. After four months of closed-door quorums, a four page, hand written document was signed by thirty-nine attendees of the Constitutional Convention. This document, has come to be considered, by many, the framework to the greatest form of government every known; the Constitution of the United States. One of the first of its kind, the Constitution laid out the frame work for the government we know today. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people; constructed of three branches; each branch charged with their own responsibilities. Article one established the Congress or Legislative branch, which would be charged with legislative powers. Article two created the Executive branch, providing chief executive powers to a president, who would act in the capacity of Commander in Chief of the Country’s military forces. The President of the United States also acts as head of state to foreign nations and may establish treaties and foreign policies. Additionally, the President and the departments within the Executive branch were established as the arm of government that is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress. Thirdly, under Article three of the Constitution, the Judicial branch was established, and consequently afforded the duty of interpreting the laws, determining the constitutionality of the laws, and apply it to individual cases. The separation of powers is paramount to the system of checks and balances among the three branches; however, although separate they must support the functions of the others. Because of this, the Legislative an...
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
The 18th Clause of Section 8, Article I allows for Congress to make any laws that are necessary or proper to assist other clauses in enforcement. Through the course of United States (US) history, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been debated on, used heavily and lightly, and has also helped the US succeed as a prosperous nation. Because there is no basic description for the 18th Clause, there have been no direct rules for interpretation by the government.
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of thei... ... middle of paper ... ...
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”
In his essay, “A Matter of Interpretation,” Justice Antonin Scalia lays out three key elements of textualism, which are explicitly present in two other competing approaches of statutory interpretation. The meaning and the intent of the law, are two of the key elements of textualism which are present in the living Constitution and strict constructionism approaches. In addition, the context of the law is an element of textualism which is present in the living Constitution approach. When Justice Scalia speaks about the context of the law, he states “in textual interpretation, context is everything” (Scalia 37), however, context is also present in the living Constitution approach. An equally important element of textualism, is the meaning of the law and it is present in the living Constitution and strict constructionism approaches. Furthermore, the intent of the law is an element of textualism which is also present in the other two competing approaches of constitutional interpretation. This essay will discuss the key elements of textualism that are explicitly present in the living
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there
The “necessary and proper” clause was included in the Constitution to allow for an “active and powerful government.” It is also known as the Elastic Clause and basically stated that the national government had the ability to pass any law that was necessary and proper to carry out national business. John Marshall expanded the interpretation of the “necessary and proper” mainly through the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland. His decision that a state could not tax an agency of the national government was not the only outcome of the court case. Marshall took the opportunity to say that even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution, the national government has the right ...