Constitution Thursday: Recent Episodes

View Details

This past week the Chief justice of the US Supreme Court ordered a stay in the beginning of the trial of the case, Juliana v US. this is the second time that the re has been a stay in the famous case, which seeks to force the US Government to pursue policies that would "keep warming in check." Both the Obama Administration and the Trump administration (which submitted a 103 page argument to the Court asking for the stay) have argued that the case is problematic, in that it violates the separation of powers in the Constitution. The plaintiffs, supposedly a group of young people, claim that their civil rights have been violated and they have demanded policy changes that would "protect their civil rights" from the effects of global climate change in the future. This raises a number of questions, one of which is, what exactly is a "civil right?"

View Details

The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 That's how it always begins. Very small. A man living in Oklahoma has a girlfriend who has an ex-boyfriend who gets into it with the man. In a gruesome crime, the ex-boyfriend is murdered, his genitals left on his chest on the side of the road. Not being a criminal mastermind, the man, Murphy, is caught. As there is little doubt and much evidence that he did it, he is tried and convicted of capital murder. The sentenced is death. Not so fast... The crime was committed by a member of the creek nation. The victim was also a Creek. And it appears that the crime was committed on Creek land. That being the case, the state of Oklahoma would have no jurisdiction, it would be a Federal case, requiring a Federal 9not State) prosecution. Because of the laws and agreements with the Tribes, such a crime cannot have a death penalty unless the tribe agrees to it, which they almost never do. Not so fast... was it on Creek land? The Treaty of 1831 says that it is, but subsequent treaties (1966) make it less than clear. Did Congress intend to take the land where the crime occurred away? Did they actually do it? Did somebody make a big mistake and forget a sentence in a document more than a century ago? And if it is Creek Land, what does that mean to the State of Oklahoma? What if the State of Oklahoma, as we've known and loved it since 1907, isn't the state of Oklahoma? what if it's only half the size it is today? Absurd, you say? That's not what the 10th Circuit Court says. And depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it might not be so crazy. By next June there might be a new old Territory and fifty percent less of the State of Oklahoma. It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show...

View Details

The one thing that you can say about the federalists is that they were optimistic. They truly hoped that, truly believed that Americans would see it for what it was and grasp their liberties firmly and protect them for generations yet to come. The Anti-Federalists weren't quite so rosy in their outlook. While some were firebrands and dedicated to the idea of State Sovereignty and Confederation, more of them were pragmatic and understood that things had to be changed. But was the proposed Constitution the best way to make that change? Perhaps the most lucid and well spoken of the Anti-federalist was an anonymous writer who went by the pen name "The Federal Farmer." his writings, which began this week in 1787, were a measured consideration of the proposed government. in fact, of the the three possible forms of government that he saw for the nation, the proposed Constitution probably made the most sense. But that didn't mean that there weren't some potential problems that, whoever he was, could foresee...

View Details

In 1971 a Senator from Alaska began publishing classified documents known collectively as "the Pentagon papers." The ensuing kerfuffle tested the limits of Article 1 Section 6. Dave & john take a look at the Constitution and The Pentagon Papers

View Details

After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws. So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so. Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their Constitution right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away. Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It's not quite as clear cut as you might think, and it's what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday...

View Details

In recent days, we have watched the debate over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. While the debate rages around things such as abortion, gay rights, women's rights, and so forth, the single fact remains that these things are rarely the meat and potatoes of what the Supreme Court does. Almost never are those things noticed until after the fact. indeed, very few (if any) questions of any nominee relate to them or to the understanding of how those things might end up affecting our day to day lives.

In 1820, a Pennsylvania man was found guilty of violating a State Law that required him to report for duty as a part of the militia during the War of 1812. He had refused service in the Pennsylvania Militia, and now it was time for the state to lower the boom. But the Feds also wanted their pound of flesh, because they believed that the Congress has powers over the Militia, and this man has spurned those laws. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply because (a) there was no incorporation and (b) the Constitution had not limited states from passing laws to punish people for failing to show up for the Militia and (c) Congress had passed such laws.

Back in 1922, a man was found guilty in the State of Washington of violating the state's prohibition against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Then the fed stepped in and after he was convicted charged him with violations of the Volstead Act, the national law against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. He protested, claiming that under the 5th Amendment this amounted to double jeopardy. The Court said that there were two systems of sovereignty, State and Federal. As a citizen, we voluntarily accept that we live under both sovereigns and therefore we can be punished by both for the same act, just not twice by either.

And in 2015, a man was stopped for having a headlamp out in his car. The officer who stopped him smelled marijuana and found the driver was a convicted felon, so he searched the car, finding drugs and a 9mm handgun. The man (Gamble) does not deny this. The state convicted him of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and then the Feds also charged him with the same crime. And the Supreme Court has been asked, once again, to consider whether or not the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Constitutional.

View Details

When the USS Caine, a fictional minesweeper in WWII, was in danger of foundering in a hurricane, the Executive Offer, with the encouragement of the Wardroom, relieved the CO and "saved" the ship. It was a clear cut case of mutiny, and as such a Court Martial would be required to resolve the matter. In the climatic moment, it becomes clear that though the Captain may be in trouble, the XO acted improperly and precipitously. He was not well advised and the Wardroom failed in its primary duty. The interesting thing is that the movie itself, and specifically was in the minds of the commission that gathered to consider the words of what would become the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Today you can buy a "25/45" T-shirt and you'll hear Talking Heads debating the whole idea of how the 25th Amendment could be used to rid the country of the hated Trump. What was once considered a ridiculous idea has gained enough steam that Vice President Pence had to specifically deny that he had conversations with the Cabinet regarding the implementation of the 25th. In fact, many people still believe that he wrote the infamous New York Time Op-Ed as the opening shot of a 25th coup d'état. The problem is that the 25th was never intended to get rid of a President because some part of the country doesn't like the way he parts his hair...

View Details

One of the myths about the Constitution is that The Federalist Papers are a commentary, like Matthew Henry's, on the Constitution. They are not. They are simply and only a passionate written argument in favor of ratification of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they are not without merit and not without lessons for us today. They do give us insight into the understanding of the document which the Framers - at least those in favor of ratification - held of the government plan which they had created. To that end, they are not only important, but they are required study for anyone who seeks a serious understanding of the Constitution of The United States. Which is why my ears picked up when I heard questions directed to Judge Kavanaugh yesterday regarding not just his personal favorite Federalist Papers (which did not include my personal favorite), but also his explanation of how Federalist 51 has impacted his personal Judicial philosophy. Federalist 51, famous for one particular phrase, reminds us of some very important ideas about the structure of our Government, many of which have been diluted and dissipated through the years. But Judge Kavanaugh has been very active during his time on the Federal bench in opposing that dilution. A fact that has not gone unnoticed by those paying close attention to the things that really matter rather than those protesting the things that really don't matter as much as they would want hem to matter. The bigger question that should come out of Judge Kavanah's answer is why is it that we have gotten so far away from the ideas and constructs that were established? and why then is it such an problem for some that a Justice Kavanaugh looks like he would seek a return to the separation of powers and unbalanced system the Framers intended? Ay, there's the rub...

View Details

James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?" In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns. (Commence menacing music here) The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property. So what's a Township to do? You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice pleasant conversation - probably over tea and milk and homemade cookies that she would make for the occasion - about the importance of this particular piece (or pieces) of history that might be on her land and work out a way that would benefit the Township, Rose Mary Knick and all the history loving wanderers who go gallivanting through the Township of Scott. Yeah... you might think that. So of course, that isn't what the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania decided to do... And it's our case for this week on Constitution Thursday, somewhat tongue in cheek titled: Grandma's Haunted History...

View Details

A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same.

At any rate, why does any of that matter?

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution.

Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal.

Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!

View Details

On Constitution Thursday we delve into the statement by the current President to the effect that he could pardon himself, were such a pardon were actually needed.

It isn't as clear-cut as you might want it to be - from a Constitutional viewpoint. But I would think that from a political viewpoint, it would create immense problems. Great problems. The biggest and best problems we've ever seen in this country.

And that would be, of course, just the beginning...

View Details

In Danbury, Connecticut, the local Baptist congregation is deeply concerned about the ability to freely practice their religion. Sure, the Constitution says they can, but those words are only as good as the men who uphold them. They are pleased that Thomas Jefferson, a well-known fighter for religious freedom is now President. Still, they want to make sure where he stands, so they write him a letter.

Two Hundred and twelve years later, the Grace Cathedral Church in Akron, OH, which didn't exist when Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists, decided to freely exercise their religion by opening, of all things, a public cafeteria on their own property. Much of the staff was paid and employed by the Church, but many of the service staff were volunteers from the church. They were there to "help" smoothly run things and to proselytize while they worked.

You will not be surprised to learn that the government objected to this arrangement and filed a lawsuit alleging violations of FSLA rules. Mind you now, not one single person complained or filed a complaint about it. The government decided that it was a violation and shut it down hard.

And so we take a look at the Case of the Danbury Cafeteria...

View Details

In a ruling that surprised absolutely nobody - with the possible exception of the President himself - the Southern District of New York ruled that the President cannot block people on Twitter.

Shocker.

Let's spend Constitution Thursday digging into this and seeing what other things it might end up impacting...

View Details

It's Constitution Thursday, and we take a look at Federalism and its evolution in The United states under the Constitution. What seemed at first to be a pretty clear distinction between state and Federal powers, has slowly morphed into a whole lot more Federal and less State. And the journey to get there started long before the Progressive era. In fact, it really stated the day after the Constitution was ratified. We'll take a short look at two cases in the news this week. One of them went before the Court and the law passed by Congress was stuck down, allowing for sports Betting to be opened up across the nation. It's the opinion in that case that has Progressives excited and one of them even exclaiming that "Federalism can be good for liberals!" The other deals with the laws being debated by Congress as we speck to make any attack on a Police Officer a Federal Crime. who would oppose that? After all, we "support" Law enforcement, right? Or do we support and defend the Constitution?

View Details

After their experience in the American revolution and years of watching Kings buy their way to policy, the Framers believed that a simple and even elegant solution was to simply ban the ability of a single person to hold Office both civilly and in the government. Makes sense, right?

So how did we get to the place where the Article is routinely "ignored" and senators become Secretaries?

View Details

Live broadcast of Constitution Thursday looks at the limits of the 26th Amendment in the light of calls for raising the purchase age of guns to 21

View Details

Many years ago, back in the 1970's, you could, on rare occasions, actually learn something watching a TV crime drama. And so it was that way back when, Dave watched an episode of Quincy, M.E., during which he learned a fact about how Jury trials can work that he retains even today. That single fact is helpful when we recall the purpose of the Jury is to serve as a mighty bulwark against government. To make certain that government isn't allowed to just run roughshod over accused citizens.

At the same time, that simple fact also makes certain that a person who is guilty can't hide behind confusion and misdirection.

Back in 2012, a man stood accused of hacking into PriceWaterhouse and stealing the Romney's tax returns, which he threatened to release to the highest bidder if he didn't get paid $1Million in digital currency. The self-named "Dr. Evil," was about as competent as his nom de guerre, and ended up in the custody of the US Secret Service, who take a dim view of people threatening potential Presidents with blackmail. He denied being involved, of course, and eventually found himself sitting in front of a Jury as the Secret Service laid out their digital case against him.

It was extremely complicated, and for people who aren't computer experts, somewhat confusing. To make sure that the Jury understood the case, the Judge allowed the same thing that Dave learned watching Quincy, M.E., all those years ago to happen...

View Details

As the debates rolled on, the nation considered many elements of the proposed Constitution. In Rhode Island there was grave concern over the idea that the State would not be able to print its own paper currency. In Virginia the Kentucky Counties worried about the navigational rights on the Mississippi River. But nearly everyone agreed on one issue - the idea that if the nation went to war, it would be stronger united than not.

On April 6, 1917, Congress gathered to vote on whether or not the United States should declare war on Imperial Germany. Four days earlier President Woodrow Wilson had made it clear that the United States was needed and ready for the fight against an evil and depraved monarchy that chose war over peace and threatened the entire world. But, he made he clear, that it would not be, it could not be, his decision alone to send the US into World War I.

Despite the changes in the world since 1787, one thing remained the same. It was that one thing that the Framers had in their prescience foreseen: that no one person should ever be allowed to take the US to war.

View Details

Imagine for the moment that you are living in Small Town, USA. Your life is pretty normal and while there are things about your life that you wouldn't want people to know, you aren't a pervert or a criminal. You're just a average person when it comes to your private life and your online activities.

Maybe you have a friend, his name is... oh let's just call him John. John Q. Public. He lives in your town and runs his own contracting business. Heck, maybe you've even hired him once or twice. Like you he has a bank account and a line of credit for his business. He also likes to travel, having gone to Europe last year. It's something you'd like to do, but you're just too busy.

One afternoon, there is a knock at your door. It's the local Police and they have a search warrant.

A search warrant for your computer. Signed by a local Judge, they want your search engine history. All of it. They have no reason to believe that you did what they are investigating, but they have convinced the Judge that if they can just look at everybody's computer and search engine history, they can find out who did do whatever it is that they are investigating.

Now again, you've done nothing wrong. Well... maybe you're a little weird and all, but what you search for is your business after all and not my place to judge. But you've committed no crime and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that might have. But here at your door stands a police officer with a warrant for your search engine history.

By the by, as you're standing there, you notice that across the street, another Officer with another warrant is knocking on that sweet old lady's door. And a couple of doors down the Pastors house has yet another Cop with a warrant. In fact, you notice that every house has a police officer with a warrant knocking on the door.

Never happen, Dave, you might be saying. First off the Cops got better things to do and nobody would be that silly and no Judge would ever approve such a warrant in the first place.

That's what you would tell me, right? Right?????

View Details

In 44bce, following the death of Julius Cæsar, Mark Anthony wasn't really impressing people in Rome with his leadership and management. Despite his inspiring speech at Cæsars funeral pyre, he was basically making a pigs breakfast of things.

Opposing him was Cicero. Here was a Constitutionalist, a leader and a man of words. And it was to words which Cicero turned in his very public condemnation and criticism of Anthony. He delivered a series of fourteen speeches, known as the Phillipics, in which he rips Anthony for everything from his management to his dalliances with women (even one beneath his station) and even implies that Anthony might be, just possibly, at least once or maybe twice, homosexual.

For his impertinence and speeches, Cicero will be killed by Anthony. Well... not Anthony himself, he was busy. But some of his men took Cicero's head and hands, and nailed them to a wall in Rome. There Anthony's current wife (#3 of at least 4, maybe 5), pulled out his tongue and drove a needle through it.

It seems that free speech criticizing the government was a risky business in the ancient Roman Republic. Anthony himself would also learn that lesson the hard way in a decade or so.

Which brings us to today, in a place about as different from Cicero's Rome as you can get, the halls of the State Capitol of Utah, located in downtown Salt Lake City. Utah, by the by, is a place with which I was once very familiar, having attended Ogden High School from where I graduated in May of 1981. It (Utah) was deeply influential on me and my views of religious freedoms and tolerance. You may ask how, but that is a discussion for another day, except to simply say that I was not a member of the primary religion in the State.

Here in the State Capitol of Utah, the Legislature has voted unanimously, to ban and to punish speech which it has said is "intended to harass" or even "frighten" or perhaps just "annoy" another person. But going a step further, Utah's lawmakers have decreed that such speech ONLINE is hereafter, henceforth and forever banned. Don't even try it. Or else.

The Legislature says that this is to protect "the people" from being "harassed" online, but the interesting things about the bill is that the "people" most likely to be involved in being talked about online are who exactly? Oh yeah... the Legislators themselves.

By the by, Utah is not the first State to try such a law. And while some protections are obvious, there is a further test which the Courts have already designed and applied, which - it appears - Utah hasn't heard about.

The first one is, of course, that pesky 1st Amendment thingee...

View Details

When we hear the term "muck raking," we almost automatically go in our heads to politicos and specifically those who "report" on politicians and their antics. There's a good reason why we associate the phrase that way. And much of it goes back to the 1st decade of the 20th Century, when calls in earnest were coming from the media to chance how Senators would be elected.

In the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt began to label those in the press who attacked him or the government as "muck rakers," a term he has borrowed from a book written in 1678 and well known to Christians even today, Pilgrim's Progress.

But it was over the US Senate that the muck-rakers, as they even began to call themselves, really began to strike a blow against what they perceived as government corruption and the failure of the US Senate. When William Randolph Hearst began to promote the attacks against the Senators such as Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, it became increasingly clear that facts were no longer relevant to the discussion. Whether there was or was not any truth in the accusations or the stories of gridlock and failure by the States no longer matters. When one Senator was exposed as a corrupt and evil man, it reflected upon the entire body.

When what would become the 17th Amendment was first introduced, it faced an uphill battle. As time went by, and as more and more of the muck-rakers "uncovered" scandals and perceived injustices, it gained traction. In 1912 it would be adopted by Congress and in 1913 it would be ratified by the requisite number of States.

And in that lies the story of how the press can change the vision of the Framers and the US Constitution...

View Details

One of the things that I believe we (corporately, not you specifically) have lost connection with in our history, is that our Framers and Founders were people, not demigods (Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding). In 1865, George Washington will be featured in a painting that is hung in the dome of the US Capitol, visible through the oculus of the dome. The painting portrays Washington being elevated to the status of a deity. The idea of portraying Washington as a god, really does not offend most Americans.

On occasion, it's worth our time to talk about and recall the realities of these men and women. They lived, they loved, they got mad, they had joys. They traveled and they discussed. They argued and they liked and disliked each other. They wrote copious letters to each other in flowery language that both complemented and occasionally berated each other. They saw things differently. Some favored one way, others favored another.

On March 30, 1788, six of the necessary nine States have ratified the Constitution. Debate is leaning towards Ratification in Maryland, and in South Carolina the resistance of the country folk is being dealt with. In New Hampshire, the efforts to manipulate things by the Federalists are being indefatigably resisted by the anti-Federalists in Convention. New York has not gathered in convention as yet, but already more than seventy letters have been published as "The Federalist Papers" arguing for the ratification. Likewise, dozens of anti-ratification letters have been published. The debate, while hopeful, is still in doubt. There are many who believe that there will be a new United States that will not have all of the original States as a part.

In Bath, England, Abigail Adams begins her trip home to The United States after three years in Paris and London.

Over the past six months, a couple from Alexandria, John and Elizabeth O'Conner, have been corresponding and even in early February, visiting the Washington's. Mr. O'Conner is a "barrister," from Ireland, who plans to write a topographical and geographical description of The United States. Elizabeth has opened a small school for girls in Alexandria.

At Mt. Vernon, George Washington sends a letter to Mr. O'Conner, thanking him for his kind words and invitation to a speech. A presentation on eloquence by Mr. O'Conner which Washington clearly had no intention of attending. Probably because he knows what the O'Conner's are really (probably) up to...

View Details

This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning "assault weapons" is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were "military" in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.

Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as "I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong" or "I am progressive so the Court is right?" Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment?

In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms:

(A) All guns are military weapons. Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military. Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted.

Or

(B) All guns are military weapons. The Militia is a military unit. Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the basic assumptions of the axiom must be true. If the underlying presumption is false, the logic, regardless of how brilliant, will reach an invalid conclusion.

Did the Court base its ruling in a good axiom or upon a flawed presumption?

View Details

In 1788, Fishkill, New York, was a well known and important city, having once served as the Capitol of New York State. It was also the home of the largest supply depot of the Continental Army. And Fishkill had its own newspaper, The New York Packet, later known as Louden's New York Packet.

It was this newspaper, on Tuesday, February 19, 1788, that published another in a series of essays which were rapidly taking the country by storm. The essays were anonymous and while there was much speculation as to the authorship, only four or five people (not counting the writers themselves) in the entire nation could say with any certainty that they knew who the author - or authors - was. Even George Washington pretended to not know as he praised the essays and proclaimed, "Who is the author?"

In fact, he had been directly told by the authors that they were in fact, the authors.

The Federalist Papers, as the essays had become known, were "the best argument" in favor of ratification for the new Constitution. They were directed at the people of New York, as the debate swirled about the State, but in fact they reached the entire country. Published in bound volumes almost as soon as the ink dried, they became a prized possession of Americans from Maine to Georgia. Indeed they were a hit internationally as well. The French offered "honorary citizenship" to the authors, one of whom would later accept the honor.

For all their grandeur and importance in their day, they have lost a certain appeal to modern Americans. They are dismissed as "old ideas," and even in the 1860's some of the essays were... if not ignored, certainly given less priority because of who the author was. And it might surprise you which ones were relegated, given the state of things today.

That Tuesday morning, readers of the New York Packet found two of the letters, numbers 56 and 57. Addressing the concerns over the House of Representatives, the author outlined his beliefs and argued that the House would be something very special and dear to the people as the primary defense of their liberties.

For myself, it is Federalist #57 that speaks loudest. It is written, as we now know, by James Madison. And it is here that we find the answer to the questions so often asked today as to where things "went wrong." Madison and Hamilton knew and understood the dangers of politics and power against the liberty of the people. The argument of Federalist #57 is how to defend liberty against such incursions.

It remains my personal favorite of the Federalist Papers, and in it I find renewed belief that We the People choose our destiny.

Which is, after all, the very meaning of the word, Liberty.

View Details

On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban.

The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders?

If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance?

It's a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!

View Details

Say the words, "Judicial Review" to most Talk Radio Show Hosts and you get to watch them go ballistic as they explain why judicial activists are ruining the country.

In recent days we have seen a whole lot of this argument, as the 9th Circuit Court upheld a stay against the Immigration Executive Orders of President Obama.

The Governments argument before the Court was that the Orders were not/are not "reviewable." That is to say that the Court has no power or jurisdiction to overturn the orders.

Whether or not you support the Orders or oppose them, there is a basic misunderstanding as to exactly what the argument was last week - and it wasn't whether or not Immigrants from seven Islamic ruled nations should be admitted or not to the country. In fact, it was the same basic argument that the Supreme Court first heard in 1796, when Alexander Hamilton himself argued that a tax on Carriages was Constitutional.

The Court agreed that it was in fact, not a direct tax and therefore Constitutional. More than that however, they made it clear that because they agreed, there was no need for "Judicial review.

But it wouldn't be long before they would see the need for it...

View Details

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed... 8th Amendment

In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a "Legislative Priority" in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot - for a variety of reasons - make bail.

The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are "poor," in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some "low level" crimes.

The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we have held dear, both as Englishmen and as Americans.

So is Bail really discriminatory? Or is there a bigger problem? Or any problem at all? And why hasn't the Supreme Court addressed it?

Today we look at Bail on Constitution Thursday.

View Details

July 4, 1788 - In Providence the local Federalists have set up a giant barbecue to celebrate both the Independence Day holiday and to read aloud the proposed Constitution. There is little hope that Rhode Island will quickly ratify the Constitution, in fact, as of today, there hasn't been any move to even call for a convention to consider the document.

The anti-Federalists in Rhode Island aren't just opposed to the Constitution. They oppose virtually every idea to strengthen the Union. For the past few years they have intentionally/unintentionally sabotaged the Articles of Confederation by using the power of the veto to stop any forward progress. It is in Rhode Island where the rampant use of State issued paper money has resulted in chaos and financial ruin to States and individuals trying to do business with Rhode Islanders

Now, as the few Federalists in Rhode Island gather to celebrate, William West, leader of the Country Party, decides to take action and make sure that the Providence Federalists understand that Rhode Island has no intention of ratifying the Constitution. He means to shut down their celebration and end once and for all the consideration of the Constitution in the Rhode Island...

View Details

In the summer of 2016, the idea that an election could be "rigged" didn't really surprise anybody. At the same time, it also allowed Americans of all political stripes to act like Captain Renault and feign shock at the idea that American democracy could be so callously and easily manipulated.

New Hampshire was the first of the Colonies to establish a government independent of the Crown and to establish its own state Constitution.

In the Spring and Summer of 1788, New Hampshire has a unique opportunity. If she ratifies, she will become the Ninth Pillar, thus establishing the Constitution as the new government of The United States. But she also faces the same problem that South Carolina, Massachusetts, and other States have seen. That is, that the seaboard cities with their heavy mercantile class population support ratification, while the interior country folks are less enamored with the Constitution.

New Hampshire's problem is that her seaboard is tiny and heavily outnumbered by the country folk. So... if you happen to be an ardent Federalist in New Hampshire in the Spring of 1788, what do you do?

What do you do? Hmmm.....

View Details

Of all the states that - even for a fleeting moment - thought that they might be able to go their own way and reject the Constitution, Virginia is probably the only one that realistically had a chance of success. But Virginia is also the center of The Enlightenment in America; and it is her leaders who have the nations confidence. So much so, that Madison almost won't make it home in time to be elected to the Virginia Convention, because he is busy conducting the Nations business which is entrusted to Virginia.

It is here that the most eloquent Anti-federalist of all, Patrick Henry, will probably join forces with George Mason, a man who attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the final document. Together, they look to face down the Federalists. If they succeed, Virginia will not ratify and it will be likely that other States remaining to consider the Constitution will follow her example.

Patrick Henry will take the lead. He has a long history of being a defender of individual, particularly religious conscience, and States rights. He has opposed Madison and Jefferson before; this time he means to pull out all of the stops to prevent what he sees as a usurpation of power from the people. Mason has become surprisingly (one might say, Samuel Adamsish) passive. Madison, having just made the convention, faces the most important task of his life...

View Details

As the ratification process turns to South Carolina, it is clear that the Federalists who run the State favor ratification. It was South Carolina, after all, that teamed up with James Wilson to cement the 3/5th's compromise and stuck to the deal as the tides of anti-slavery climbed against it.

But it won't be as simple as that. First, the State Legislature will do something that no other legislature has done - it will openly debate the Constitution "for the sake of informing the country's members" of the reasons why the Constitution should be ratified.

Then there is a second issue. South Carolina. like Massachusetts, is concerned about the lack of religious tests for holding offices. As it turns out, South Carolina has an official religion, one that is traditional but quickly becoming an anachronism.

Lastly, Mr. Rawlins Lowndes rises in opposition to ratification. A Charleston lawyer, he takes upon himself the mantel of speaking for those "less accustomed to public speaking," and he outlines the problems that many in South Carolina have with the overall tone of the Constitution. Which is, of course, the one thing that all of the Southern States, South Carolina most of all, fears the Constitution will do - end slavery.

There is strong majority anti-Federalist sentiment in the State, and indeed, there are many in South Carolina who believe that the State should "go it alone" rather than remain joined to the Union. It is Charles Cotesworth Pickney who puts a final rest to that political heresy.

When South Carolina votes to ratify, it is over the objections and the will of the people of the State. but it is the eighth pillar to be raised in the new government...

View Details

Over the course of the Convention, Luther Martin (Maryland) had been a petulant opponent of the plan and an irritant to pretty much everybody there - even those who agreed with him. Now that his State, Maryland, is taking up ratification, he will continue to adamantly and vociferously oppose the Constitution. He is the very embodiment of the Anti-Federalists.

Pretty much nobody will listen to his ranting, and Maryland will easily vote to ratify.

It's what happens after that is so fascinating to me. Because of our own historical myopia, we tend to only see the good and heroic sides of the Framers and Founders. We don't relate to them as people just like us, facing difficulties and crises. Consequently we don't learn from their example of how to deal with and even overcome those difficulties.

The rest of Luther Martins' life will be spent in various pursuits as a lawyer - including defending Aaron Burr against charges of treason - and in the bottle. But by 1807, he will be called, "The Federalist Bulldog," by no less than Thomas Jefferson. What drives a man who is virulently anti-Federalist to change his mind? Was it the ultimate "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Or did Luther Martin discover something about human nature in his later years?

View Details

As momentum builds for ratification, the two biggest States, New York and Virginia are hesitating.

New York is seemingly against ratification, but as the pillars of the needed nine States continue to fall, the debate intensifies. With their convention not scheduled to begin for several weeks, the debate moves into the Social Media of the day - the newspapers.

First, New York papers take up the Anti-Federalist cause by publishing the DeWitt Letters, the Letters from a Federal Farmer, the Cato and Brutus letters, but they also begin to pick up a series of equally anonymous letters written specifically to the people of New York and signed simply, Publius.

These particular letters will become known as "The Federalist Papers," and they are not - despite common misconception - a "commentary on Federalist Papers Facebookthe Constitution." They are in fact, a reasoned and direct defense of the Constitution as written and a statement of what the Federalists believed would be the benefits of ratification of the Constitution.

But the really amazing thing to think about when we consider all of these letters is how the people of New York (and the rest of the country) consumed them. It's quite an odd foreshadowing of a more modern phenomena with which we ourselves are very familiar, #socialmedia...

View Details

After "impartial discussion & full consideration," the Massachusetts delegates to their State ratifying Convention agreed to what became known as the "Massachusetts Compromise." This allowed a number of anti-Federalists, including Samuel Adams, to vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. But it wasn't a cut and dried, full-throated endorsement of the document. As the compromise agreed, many of the Anti-Federalist ideas worked their way into the ratification document as proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Many of their recommended amendments are easily recognized by us today, and some made their way into the proposed Bill of Rights when the 1st Congress finally convened. Some of the ideas were ultimately rejected, but there is one overriding idea that we must keep in mind when considering these ideas: all of them came from people who did not like the Constitution as proposed.

As intriguing as what the Massachusetts Convention recommended is what the did not include in their list of proposed amendments. Did they leave out some of the most treasured Rights because they assumed the States would and could protect them or did they presume that the proposed Federal Government would never try to stifle free speech or religion?

View Details

When the Massachusetts Convention gathered in early January, 1788 to consider ratification off the Constitution, the state faced three hurdles to ratification.

First, the lingering suspicion and distrust of a central government from the western part of the State when just two years before, Shay's Rebellion had shaken the nation. The western part of the State saw the Constitution as little more than a larger form of the same government that had suppressed their rights and demanded their hard currency, and strongly objected to the idea that Congress would be able to tax and that only gold and silver could be used to pay debts.

The Second problem was Maine. At the time, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and because of it's physical separation had often felt both neglected and treated as second class by the Boston mercantile class. Furthermore, Maine had staunch loyalist leanings during both the Revolutionary war, and would again during the War of 1812. It was assumed by most people that Maine wanted to separate from Massachusetts, but that the proposed Constitution made it virtually impossible to do so since Massachusetts would have to give it's consent to do so. But like many assumptions about both people and the Constitution, this turned out to be the least of the Federalist's worries.

The third, and potentially the greatest hurdle to Massachusetts ratification was Sam Adams. He had made it clear that he saw in the Constitution, not a protection of the sovereignty of the States in a federal union, but instead a national government, which he was certain would crush the rights so recently and so difficultly won. Despite his "open mouthed" opposition to the Constitution, he was elected as a delegate by Boston, which supported the ratification.

As Henry Knox informed General Washington, 2/7th's of Massachusetts was "insurgents" who had supported Shays, 2/7th's was Maine which opposed the ratification on their own grounds. Leaving only 3/7th's to try and carry the Constitution and try and make Massachusetts the 6th State to ratify...

View Details

In early 1788, a Weston, Massachusetts newspaper reported that, "Little else, among us, is thought or or talked of, but the new Constitution." The debate seemed to engross the attention of all classes of people, including women, who normally would be excluded from politics. . But as Massachusetts debates, the fate of the Constitution is as yet, undetermined. If Massachusetts ratifies, it is likely that the Constitution will be adopted. But if not, it seems that New York, Virginia will most likely follow their example. The debate's have consumed Americans of all political and social divisions. for the first and perhaps only time in her history, the level of political engagement is nearly one hundred percent. Even former Loyalists have and interest in the Constitution being ratified, as it would mean they would finally receive their long ago promised compensation. But no longer will States simply approve the Constitution in quick and easy conventions. In Massachusetts, where the Revolution really began, the life or death of the Constitution will face it's first real test among the States.

View Details

Connecticut's path to ratification was decidedly more smooth than some of the other States. While there would be debate, and the final vote would not be unanimous, the entire process reflected the character of Connecticut in a way perhaps no other process had. Certainly not the Revolution, which at one point during the Convention, had seen a delegate accuse Connecticut of being less than whole hearted in her efforts to support the Patriot cause.

Overshadowing Connecticut's debate, the Federalist Papers turn away from the subject of the problems with the Confederacy and the ills that face the nation and the need for union, to the more detailed arguments as to why certain provisions in the proposed Constitution are so important and, consequentially, beneficial to the nation.

The Anti-Federalists naturally turn to those same provisions as dangers to the liberties of the people.

So who is right? Can both sides be? How can something, like a standing army, be both a danger and a necessity?

View Details

By the summer of 1787, George, the youngest and smallest (population size) State, seemingly had very little to offer to the nation, and needed a great deal of help to deal with her problems, many of which could be described as more or less self-produced.

The biggest problem was Georgia's indifference towards... well... pretty much everything, including defending herself, first against the British and now against the hostile tribes on her borders and territory. And while her participation in Congress had been spotty at best, she had managed to send four delegates to the Convention.

Now, in very late 1787 - December 25th, to be exact, Georgia's leaders gathered to debate ratification of the Constitution. For her, it was more a matter of what was to be gained, than what could be lost. And when the New Year finally rolled in, Georgia kicked it off by officially ratifying the Constitution.

View Details

In late 1788, Pennsylvania was, without a doubt, the most culturally, religiously and politically diverse State in the Union. It was also the one State that managed to spend most of the preceding decade disenfranchising most of its own citizens as a small powerful, anti-British, anti-Quaker minority ruled the State politically and used that power to maintain its base. It was only in 1786 that laws had been repealed that allowed the ouster of the political minority from power.

Now, just two years later, the State delegates meet in the same room where the Constitution had been forged to debate whether or not Pennsylvania would follow Delaware's lead and ratify the document. Unlike Delaware, in this room sat men who adamantly opposed the Constitution, and interestingly enough, had recently been removed from power in the State.

Over the few weeks of debate, the fight in Pennsylvania moved out of the State Hall, and into the media of the day - newspapers and pamphlets. And whoever won that, would win the ratification debate.

Our story today begins in the office of a prominent Wilkes-Barre citizen, who supports ratification of the Constitution. On his desk, given to him by another, perhaps more prominent citizen of the city, are pamphlets that present a Federalist, pro-constitution view of the matter, with instructions to distribute the pamphlets throughout the city. But Ebenezer doesn't like the fact that the pamphlets contain rebuttals to arguments against the Constitution. He fears that if the good people of Wilkes-Barre read these, they will discover that there are cogent arguments against the Constitution. And so, he hits upon an idea...

View Details

The first State conventions in Pennsylvania and Delaware are called to debate the proposed Constitution. While Pennsylvania will actually debate, and question the wisdom of proceeding sans Bill of Rights, Delaware's internal issues and her external debates with the other States, have put her in a unique position. Of the thirty delegates who will be elected to her Convention, all thirty will favor ratification, even those men from Sussex County, which polls show is adamantly against ratification. For years, Delaware had led the fight for equal representation. Both in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and in the new Senate. And it is at Delaware's insistence and with her support that the proposed Constitution offers that equal representation in the new Senate. Internally, Delaware is racked by violence and constant bickering between the the Whigs and the Tories, but unlike her neighbor, Pennsylvania, both of Delaware's political movements want the Constitution ratified. It's more an argument of who will get credit for it, than it is whether or not they should ratify the Constitution.

As Pennsylvania hesitates, Delaware ratifies the Constitution and become "The First State" of the new Federal Republic.

View Details

Breaking both the timeline and the 4th Wall, the debate of religion and government in the United States has taken on a new and particularly partisan tone in recent days, as the Nation tries to decide what to do about the Syrian Refugee problem. Oddly enough, the debate has taken on religious tone, as some say that "as Christians" we must accept the refugees, while others say that we must not. Scripture is quoted to both support and defy the idea of bringing in the refugees. But as Dave so often says, people do not change. The do the same things for the same reasons usually with the same results, throughout history. Indeed, as we have already seen, they even have the same arguments. As the debate over debate the ratification of the Constitution continued, one of the ideals bubbled to the surface - religion, and the lack thereof in the proposed Constitution, came to the front and center. But you might be surprised as to who was on which side of things, and why. And how it shows that all these centuries later, we are still debating the same questions as those who debated the Ratification of the Constitution.

View Details

John DeWitt issues his second letter, in which he begins to get to the details of issues over which he is concerned about the proposed Constitution. Later, Hamilton, writing as Publius, will answer the objection to the lack of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84.

But both arguments should remind us of one important historical fact: that the Bill of Rights was, in essence, given to us by people who objected to the general functions of the proposed Constitution.

Even today, on a College Campus in Columbia, MO, we see what is, in effect, the exact same argument from all those years ago. Should there be a central basically unrestrained government with the power to command the citizenry, or should that strong central government have limits placed upon it to protect precious rights which are necessary for liberty?

The answer to us today seems clear. We venerate and honor our Bill of Rights. But the argument isn't always so clear cut, and the issue not always... black and white...

Extra Reading: Hamilton's "The Continentalist #1"

View Details

As he closes the 2nd Federalist Paper, Publius appeals to the words of the poet to remind Americans that all of our greatness, all that we have achieved and could yet be, will be erased if we reject Union. The arguments take on a more philosophical tone, between classic republicanism and what each side believes is the best definition of that term, and what is the best way to achieve the singular goal of Union to protect individual rights, liberties and the survival of the Nation? In the study of the Constitution, we begin to realize that our long held beliefs about what the Framers thought best, might not match up with what they themselves told us they believed. It should not change or passion, or even necessarily our positions. But it should remind us that Union is still the only way to achieve what we can be as a Nation. That we must join, or die.

View Details

By the end of October, 1787, the two side in the debate had been clearly delineated. There were those who were opposed to the Constitution, and there were those who favored it.

Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, as they would become known, had been first to publish their ideas with the first two DeWitt letters. But even as the second hit the papers, the first pro constitution article appeared. It was addressed to the People of the State of New York, and signed by the penname Publius, one of four men who overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic in 509 b.c.e.

Over the coming months, many more pro constitution, or "Federalist Papers" would be written. Their purpose was clear - to convince the people of the State of New York, and by extension, the entire country, to favor ratification of the Constitution.

View Details

Three weeks after the convention ends, the first of the many letters debating the proposed Constitution appears in published newspapers. The discussion will revolve around whether the Nation should remain as it is, a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or if it should move to a single central government. Already dividing lines are being drawn between those who favor the new Constitution and those who fear that it goes too far and takes too much away from the individual States. By this point, virtually every newspaper in the country has printed a copy of the proposed Constitution, allowing every citizens to read it or at least hear it, and to discuss it among themselves. This is the moment when every man will have to decide for himself under what impressions he will act. For this first, and perhaps only time in all of history, the People are asked to decide their form of government, not just who will be the leaders. And the debates, are just beginning.

View Details

The Convention is over, and the delegates disperse home. George Washington can hardly wait to get out of town and on his way back to Mt. Vernon. He is so anxious to leave, that it almost costs him his life.

The issue is now before the States to decide. Ratification and Union or reject the proposed Constitution and try to go it alone or in small groups.

As the process begins, the Congress of the United States takes up the debate first. Should they approve of the draft Constitution? Or has it gone too far?

Two opposing ideologies will coalesce around the debate. One Conservative and liberty minded. The other, radical and focused on a much different - and much bigger - goal. Can only one succeed and push the other into the pages of history?

Or is there yet still room for compromise?

View Details

Over the course of the convention, Gouvernor Morris has lost every single debate, discussion, argument and point. It would be hard to find any single man who had less successful direct influence on the direction of the debates. Everything that he wanted or stood for in the new government had been defeated.

Now, as the work draws to its close, the convention turns to the one man in whom they have utmost confidence to stitch together the final document.

And that man, is Gouvernor Morris.

When all is said and done, it is Ben Franklin who rises to the moment. His words of self-sacrifice and putting the nation ahead of oneself ring in our hearts even today. And most of all, lets us astonish our enemies.

View Details

As the convention reaches the end of the first week of September, it seems, at least on the surface of things, that all their work is about to come undone. Luther Martin is convinced that the only way the American people will agree to this Constitution is to be hurried into it by surprise. Edmund Randolph of Virginia declares that yet another full convention be held - AFTER the states are given the opportunity to make amendments to the draft.

It seems like there is a movement to undo all that has been done.

What is left to hold the Convention together? Two men. Perhaps the only two men in all of American history to whom every citizen will listen...

View Details

As August fades into September, General Washington is feeling pretty upbeat about how things are going. At least one delegate believes that they will be done "i9n three weeks time." Others aren't so ready to finish things without getting their say. Every attempt to resolve the matter of the Presidency is met with an objection and a move to delay. Soon enough, the Committee on Postponed Parts will have their hands full trying to resolve everything that has been postponed. In the meanwhile, the Convention seems to, for the first time, consider why a new form of Government is needed, beyond the Randolph outline of so many weeks ago. The principles that underlie the nation are Life, Liberty and Property. There is general realization that a stronger central government is the best guarantee of those. watching what is happening in Rhode Island has convinced them that left to themselves, the States will not provide those protections. With that in mind, the Delegates take up the Judiciary and the power of the States over commerce, money and contracts. They believe that the federal Governments control of these items, among others, will provide the best guarantee of Life, Liberty and Property.

View Details

Today, we debate and discuss the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which may, depending on how you read it, gives the President the authority to make war, while Congress has not declared a war. Oddly enough, the delegates had exactly the same debate, which is why the Constitution gives Congress the power to DECLARE war and the expected the President to MAKE war... as long as the people approved...

Needing a bit of a break, most of the Delegates headed down to the shore of the Delaware River to take a ride on a steam ship. Yes... a steam ship. Twenty years before anybody ever heard of Robert Fulton. Is it possible that little adventure helped them to empower Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"

Roughly a hundred years after the convention, Otto von Bismark will develop his political maxim of the "realpolitik." He could have learned it from Rutledge, who, in response to Luther Martin's call to accept the immorality of slavery, reminds the Convention that IF there is to be a Union, it WILL be with slavery. And if there is a Union WITH slavery, non-slave States... will make a whole lot of money...

View Details

Getting started on Rutledge's' draft of the Constitution, some members notice that there are some very odd things contained in the document. Rufus King of Massachusetts can keep quiet no longer. He has agreed to things so far because he believes that a strong central government must emerge from the Convention. But what he sees on paper now, is a nation divided by avarice and slavery. Either what Rutledge has written must change or the three-fifth's must be eliminated. He won't say the word, but the room senses he means abolition.

Gouverneur Morris has no such limits. He will rail once more, passionately and deeply about the evils and morality of slavery.

The Convention listens, then gets down to work. Realizing that the entire room is unwieldy and that the best and fastest work gets done in committee, they form several such groups, including, the committee on all the stuff we forgot or are too busy to work on...

View Details

As the Delegates return from their vacation, so does the summer heat. Sitting down to work, they begin to read and digest the draft that Rutledge of South Carolina has put together while they were gone.

There are many points of contention, but also many points of agreement.

One agreement is that they are moving too slowly, and that the nation is growing impatient.

Despite the progress, there remains much to be done. James Madison feels that the work could take many more months. Washington and most of the other delegates know that they do not have that much time.

The first solution offered is to work longer days.

From 10am until 4pm with no changes to the schedule now allowed.

With the new plan in place, they take up the qualification for electors.

Should property ownership be considered? The draft of the Constitution says that it should not be considered, but some, like Gouverneur Morris, vehemently disagree.

View Details

The LPOV Group sits down for a wide ranging discussion of Article VI Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause.

Shark_finningWhen California passes a law that bans the possession, distribution or sale of Shark fins in the State, a Chinese-American Neighborhood Association sues, claiming that they are being discriminated against by the law. There is a claim of Equal Protection, a claim under the Commerce Clause, and a claim that the United States already has laws dealing with Shark fins, and that those those laws should take precedence over California's law.

Is there any merit to the claims? Is it racist to outlaw Shark fins? Does the law interfere with Interstate Commerce? Most of all, does the Federal law take supremacy over the States law banning shark fins?

View Details

After some "housekeeping" about what is going on with Dave, the discussion moves to the idea of who and what makes a "Hero?"

Rick RescorlaWe begin with a picture of a Soldier in Vietnam. What can we glean from the picture? Is he a "War Hero?"

The ancient Greek ideals of heroes are useful, but they have been modified in the modern era with the addition of an element which the Greeks did not specifically consider. In modern interpretations "morality" has become as big an element as the Greek Element of facing mortality.

Dave shares four of his own personal "War Hero's," including his Grandfather and friend. A listener shares his story of how his Father became his hero.

We close with the death of the Solider in the picture and ask the question, is he a "War Hero?"

View Details

The small States have won their battle for Equal representation in what will become the Senate. The Slave States have held on to their three fifth's compromise. For now, the Convention will move another element of the plan, the Presidency.

Ideas of how he should be elected and for how long dominate the discussion. Throughout the discussion, one man cats his shadow over the debates.

rQdi6qhL8tdqrDqEvRL7G59REvery man in the room knows that the first President under the proposed new government will be the Convention's leader, General George Washington.

To a man, they are happy to know this. What concerns them, and what the controls the debate is a single question.

Who will be the second man to become President of The United States?

View Details

For some weeks, Gouverneur Morris of New York has been absent from the Convention. Now, at the lowest point of the proceedings, he arrives with a single purpose: to derail the 3/5th's compromise. The tensions rise as the Slave States begin to believe that there are those, "within or without doors" who mean to take their slaves away. This will never be acceptable to the Slave States, and indeed, there is at least one non-Slave State that admits that it feels the same way.

The debate boils down to one simple thing, do we unite with slavery, or do we dissolve without it? Morris will attempt to force the latter, but like all others before him, he will fail.

When the dust settles, the Connecticut Compromise passes, and the Convention begins to move forward again.

View Details

As the Convention prepares to adjourn for the Independence Day holiday, there is a great deal of anger and frustration in the room. Luther Martin expresses it best, when he says that the convention hangs by no more then the width of a human hair.

To move forward, a committee of Eleven is chosen to come up with a compromise plan to present after the break.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin will lead the committee, which - over the objections of Madison and Wilson - is stacked with small State supporters.

Can he get them to agree on a compromise that will please both the convention and the nation, which is waiting with great expectations to celebrate the new government and the Independence Day holiday?

The stage is set for the celebration, as Washington sits for a portrait and speeches extol the glory of Independence day. But the Delegates must surely be worried about letting everybody down if they fail...

View Details

Since June 11th, the Convention has been stuck on one question - will the representation in the proposed senate be equal (one state, one vote), or proportional?

But now, the debates are becoming personal. James Madison will stoop to personal insults. Gunning Bedford (Delaware) will threaten to seek a foreign alliance. And Luther Martin will annoy everybody with his three hour screed about States Rights and his body odor.

Through it all, General Washington knows that those he believes to be demagogues are on the verge of destroying everything.

When the dust settles on Monday, July 2, 1787, one more vote will be taken on the matter. This time, if the small States lose, the Convention will almost certainly break up. But how can they win? The numbers arrayed against them are too strong, and too committed to the big State ideal of proportional representation.

There is not even a prayer that they can prevail, or at least... not lose again. There doesn't seem to be any chance of saving the convention or avoiding the feared destruction of The United States of America.

With the clock ticking to the Independence Day celebrations, Ben Franklin will remind the delegates, that if He cares about the sparrow, that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel..."

View Details

Two days after the Committee of the Whole accepts the 3/5th's Compromise and adds another four resolutions to the Virginian's Plan, it is now clear that the Virginian's mean to abolish the Articles of Confederation and establish a new government based on the principles of Liberty and freedom. This presents a difficult moral challenge to them as a group, and represents the apex of their ideas presented at the Convention.

New Jersey steps up with an alternate plan, which, like the Virginia Plan promises to fix and improve the Articles of Confederation, but unlike the Virginia Plan, actually does. Now comes the moment that the two plans are laid before the Convention, debated and it is decided to pursue one and abandon the other. But which plan will go forward?

As the Convention prepares to call for the vote, one ma, New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, stands to have his say. He will speak for the entire day, and he will come to rue this day...

NOTE: At one point Dave refers to Hamilton being on the $20 Bill. Obviously he meant the $10 Bill...

View Details

As the first couple of weeks of the Convention drone on, the debates become very heated. Perhaps best described as "frank, bordering on direct." The small States, led by New Jersey's Attorney General William Paterson, attack the idea of proportional representation as destructive to them.

It is now that we discover that the great debates of our time, are the same debates of the Convention. Is it to be "One Man=One Vote?" Or will each State have equal representation in the proposed government?

When it seems that there is an impasse, it is James Wilson of Pennsylvania, along with South Carolina's Pickney and Rutledge, who hammer out the compromise which so many have proclaimed a "Faustian Bargain," the 3/5th's Compromise.

View Details

The Virginian's introduce their plan for a new National Government, which officially shocks the Convention, since they believed (officially) that they were there only to revise and amend the Articles of Confederation.

The Convention adjourns to the Committee of the Whole - which is the same people, in the same room with the same purpose as the Convention but without General Washington sitting on the dais. So who is in charge of the discussion and debates that will begin with the Virginia Plan and end up with what we know so well as our Government?

He was the 14th President of the United States, and he died in disgrace and failure. But for the moment, he is the man who is so well respected that he is chosen to lead the Committee of the Whole in its important work. His name, is Nathaniel Gorham.

He will control the discussions of The Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan (and eventually the Connecticut Compromise) in the first days of the Convention.

View Details

The new President, Gerald R. Ford, pardons the old Presedint, Richard M Nixon. Thirty-nine years later, Dave & John take a look at Article 2 Section 2, Opinions and Pardons

View Details

A compiled Biography of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

View Details

The Convention finally gets underway. First things first, rules have to be established and agreed upon. Then the business of reforming the Government can get rolling. The first presentations take on the problems the nation confronts, including the biggest danger facing America.

The local Newspaper want a story, and somebody, just who isn't exactly clear, is giving them one.

George Wythe and his rules committee approve two special rules that will serve to insure secrecy and flexibility.

View Details

To say that General Washington was angry would have been the understatement of the century. He was as close to losing his legendary cool as he had been since the war ended, and with his personal reputation on the line, he circulated the parties and dinners of Philadelphia's social network. He faced a barrage or questions about the rumors swirling through the City. "Do you mean to destroy the government?"

The source of the rumors was the discovery that the Virginia delegation was meeting in secret each day as they waited for the rest of the delegates to arrive, to refine a plan that James Madison had written to do just that. Was this... treason?

Of bigger concern, the small States were horrified that Virginia meant to swallow them up, through "addition, division, or impoverishment." The call went out as a letter was dispatched to John Dickinson of Delaware. He would arrive in time to fight to save the small States...

View Details

Today, May 14th is the 228th Anniversary of the Date set for the Constitutional Convention to begin in Philadelphia. The American Democracy, founded on the ideas of the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was now on trial before the entire world. Anxious empires awaited the outcome of the Convention with their eyes on what would be left to take, should the Americans fail to restore good government and end up going their separate ways. The Philadelphia convention did not get off to a prompt start, as heavy rains had turned every road into the city to rivers of mud. By the assigned starting date, only eight delegates had arrived. It was an inauspicious beginning to the last ditch attempt to save the United States of America. Today we begin our look at the Convention itself. For the next few months, we will take a look at what happened at the Convention in the previous week. What was debated, discussed. We will meet the fifty-five men who wrote our Constitution, starting with one Daniel St. Thomas Jennifer of Delaware.

View Details

The 2nd Court of Appeals rules that the NSA exceeded its authority and the Patriot Act by the collection of Metadata. But the problem of Edward Snowden remains...

View Details

A Constitution Thursday look at the 14th Amendments protections of "privileges and immunities" and how that enters into the arguments for and against bans on gay marriage

View Details

As the nation awaits the Court Martial of Bowe Bergdahl, the question of his guilt seems obvious, but is it in light of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution and the more than 130 times it has been used to establish precedents about what is "war for Constitutional purposes?"

View Details

A man is stopped for a broken taillight in a place where it is not illegal to have a broken taillight... from there things go down hill fast. What happens when a Police Officer makes a "reasonable error" in enforcing a law that doesn't actually exist as the basis for a search and seizure? And should the results of that search and seizure be admissible in Court?

View Details

"On this day, Yom Hashoah, we recall the millions who died as a result of a legal process and we ask the question, could such things ever happen here in the United States?

The Espionage Act of 1917 was used to silence opposition to the Governments policy of War with Germany. In 1799 the Alien and Sedition Act was used to silence critics of the Government in the United States. But by the 1960's attitudes about dissent to Government war efforts had changed significantly.

But what would it take to change them back and restore a scenario where ""dissent is [not] patriotism?"

View Details

"In Indiana, controversy reigns over the State's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with accusations flying that it will allow rampant discrimination against gay people. So why did Indiana feel the need to pass such a law in the first place? What was it that compelled a Democrat Party controlled Congress to pass the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives and a 97-3 vote in the Senate before being signed by President Bill Clinton? And if the nations liberals saw good in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, what is it about Indiana's version that has them so worked up?

In this episode we take a look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how we got to the point where Indiana (and a lot of other States) felt compelled to pass such a law. The story begins in the migrant worker farmed fields of Texas in the 1930's, with a child born to migrant farm workers who will go on to fight for Civil rights and to freely express his religious beliefs..."

View Details

Two rebellions, the first in the 1760 and the second in the 1780’s lead to the Constitutional ideas of Establishing Justice and Insuring Domestic Tranquility

View Details

"The 1st Amendment protects citizens from the government when they exercise their speech and press rights. So was it “free speech” or “creating a hostile learning environment,” when the President of the University of Oklahoma expelled two students for what they sang on a bus? And when a local man rips down a neighbors offensive house decorations, is it protected? Share this:"

View Details

We the People ordained and established the Constitution in order to provide "for the common defense." In doing so, the debate was sparked over what was needed for that defense, and whether or not there any actual threats to the United States. How would the power of taxation, given to the proposed new government, be an great asset to provide for such a common defense? And ultimately, who decides what are the national security interests of the nation?

View Details

"What is the opposite of ""slavery?""

It's not actually ""freedom."" The Founders weren't fighting for freedom, they fought for Liberty. So what is the difference?

The prohibitions contained in the Constitution allowed for the abolition of all forms of slavery, by prohibiting ex post facto laws, enshrined the writ of habeas corpus and prohibited Titles of Nobility. In all, these things did more to secure and protect liberties than anything that was contained in the State Constitutions under the Confederacy."

View Details

By 1786, the United States were on the brink of utter destruction as a nation. The government had no way to raise money, no way top defend the borders and no way to protect individual rights. Armed insurrection was a real threat, and armed invaders stood ready to pounce on whatever was left. The Philadelphia Convention was more than just “fixing” the government. It was, quite literally, the last chance for the American dream. In the Preamble, we see how the Convention proposed to save the nation, what it would accomplish and it took a direct aim at those who would support the fatally flawed government already in place.

(Editors note: We apologize for the excessive background noise. Ben was home from school today, and he was just wound up and wasn’t going to calm down for anything. This 45 minute podcast took nearly six hours to record, but we powered through it and got it done as best we could…)

View Details

In Yuba City, a Sikh man is told that he cannot serve as a juror as long as he refuses to remove his kirpan, a symbol of deep meaning and religious devotion to baptized Sikhs. This raises the question: Is there a "right" to serve on a Jury?" Does the need for public safety outweigh religious freedom? And what does it teach us about the jury system?

View Details

The Supreme Court issues several rulings in which the LPOV crew are particularly interested, including search warrants for cell phones, free speech and religion and the Recess Appointments made by the President.

View Details

The LPOV takes the show on the road to the VFW Hall in Turlock to have the show in front of a live audience.

An anonymous tip leads the stopping, searching and subsequent arrest of two men in California. Later the Supreme Court will take up the question as to whether or not an anonymous tip is sufficient probable cause to have stopped the truck, leading to the search and the arrest? Moreover, if the Court says that it is, what is the long range effect on American Society? A live audience means questions and interactions!

View Details

After a two year investigation, the Kaleys found themselves essentially destitute when the Government indicted them and froze all of their assets. The resulting case asked the question as to whether or not an ex parteforfeiture order based on the Grand Jury’s actions violates the 6th Amendments protections. In this version of Kaley v United States, the LPOV debates and discusses the merits and disadvantages of the Criminal Grand Jury and asks what we can learn about the process going forward.

View Details

In this version, which features several extended moments in the first segment of silence from Chattroom Jeff who’s microphone failed to record, resulting in the canonical version presented above, the LPOV takes a different tack on the Kaley case and discusses what exactly is “effective” counsel?

View Details

Does money donated to a political candidate or cause equal free speech?

The McCutcheon ruling from the Supreme Court opens a lot of questions and great argument between Pat and Jeff about whether or not money is speech and what - if anything - can be done to limit its corruptive influence. Dave, Jeff & Pat look at the ruling and free speech in political cash

View Details

Is there such as thing as "reasonable restriction" on gun ownership? Dave, Pat & Jeff look at the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment

View Details

On May 4, 1970, the nation was shocked by the Kent State Shooting. Dave asks the question, how do we as a free society - or any free society - move from a belief in the freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment to the reality of placing (in some cases) severe limits on those freedoms. Dave, Pat and Jeff discuss the issue and look at the lessons of freedoms from around the globe contrasted to the United States of America.

View Details

IRS official Lois Lerner goes to Congress again in the investigation of the IRS scandal, and she takes the 5th Amendment. But can a Government Official, presumably acting in the name of the Government, claim that the Government is not going to cooperate with the Government when the Government is investigating the Government? Dave, Jeff & Pat look at the 5th Amendment and ask, does self incrimination apply when the government is investigating itself?

View Details

Led by the State Legislature of Georgia, the calls for an Article V Convention are becoming more and more common, but is such a State called Constitutional Convention even possible today? And even if it happened, would it accomplish anything? And if the problems are obvious, why did the Framers even put the clause allowing the States to call a convention in the Constitution in the first place? Dave, Pat and Jeff look at an Article V Convention

View Details

In Los Angeles, a man is suspected of several crimes. When the Police reach his apartment and knock, a woman answers the door and gives the LAPD permission to enter, even as he shouts that they cannot. Previous rulings hold that the Police can enter under that circumstance, but that's when things get weirder and turn even more L.A... Dave, Jeff and Pat look at the 4th Amendment and the Fernandez ruling

View Details

The Peruta ruling on the California Law requiring a person to “show good cause” has a great deal of local impact as one local Sheriff requires “good moral character” in addition to showing good cause. Dave, Jeff and Pat on the 2nd Amendment and the ruling

View Details

Free Speech -Members of The Insane Clown Posse and their fans file a lawsuit alleging violations of their 1st Amendment rights to be jerks. Or something like that, anyway. The backdrop is the "firing” and rapid "un-firing” of Phil Robertson after he expressed his own opinions. Dave, Pat and Jeff look at 1st Amendment and speech.

View Details

1st Amendment Establishment of Religion - When a long standing monument is accused of being an establishment of religion, the court cases start flying and the counter accusations begin to mount up. Dave, Pat and Jeff look at The 1st Amendment and Religion

View Details

1st Amendment Introduction - The NSA might be the only Department in the Government that actually listens to the people, but they have absolutely no sense of humor about it at all. Does the 1st Amendment give us the right to make fun of them? Dave, John , Pat the Lawyer and Chatroom Jeff kick off the Saturday Podcast of Constitution Thursday

View Details

Constitution Thursday (and Afternoons Live) come to an end as Dave recaps four years of Constitutoin Thursday and looks to the future

View Details

Despite the proposed Constitution's positives, there were those who argued that it would be a mistake to adopt such a government. They were the "Anti-Federalists," and they included many well known Patriots. Dave & John look at the Anti-Federalist Arguments against the Constitution

View Details

Despite what some believe, the actual purpose of the Constitution was to preserve the Union. Without it, none of the social ills or problems would have been solved. Without Union, the nation would not survive. Article VII bears the signatures of some of the greatest men who ever lived who attest to the idea that together we are stronger.

View Details

Article VI of the US Constittuon says that the Constitution is the supremem law. What does that mean? Dave & John look at Article VI

View Details

During the Civil War, Texas decides to sell the bonds they got from the US Government when they became a State. The problem is that the Governor refused to sign off on the idea, and the bonds didn't really belong to the Confederate Government in Texas. Dave & John trace the bonds and the relationships between the States and the Federal Government in Article V of the US Constitution

View Details

The admission of a new State into the Union is an exciting moment. Unless, you happen to be in the middle of a Civil War, and the State in question is being carved out of another State which may.. or may not... have given its permission. Dave & John look at the adding of new States tot he Union and Article IV Section3 &4

View Details

Long before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus, Irene Morgan took her bus ride across State lines and into civil rights history and helped change the nation. Dave and John learn about her bus trip as they look at Article IV Section 2

View Details

An inventor runs into some issues between the jurisictions of at least two States. Dave & John delve into Article IV Section 1 to see how this is all supposed to work out.

View Details

Dave & John continue their look at Article III and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. When a stripper turned nightclub owner gets her money taken away, what will the Courts do?

View Details

Dave & John start their look into Article III of the US Constitution and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government

View Details

Dave & John look at Article 2, Sections 3 and 4

View Details

Dave & John take a look at Article 2 and Treaties with other nations

View Details

Dave & John explore the War powers of the Commander and Chief in Article 2 Section 2

View Details

Dave & John take a detour into the 5th Amendment and your right to remain silent

View Details

Dave & John look at the issue of who is elegible to be President

View Details

Not long after the ratification of the Constitution, the new Congress decided that it was already tired of being criticized and complained about. Solution? Just pass laws banning such criticism, right? What a second... Dave and John look at Article 1, the separation of powers and The Principles of '98

View Details

Dave & John look at the process to elect a President

View Details

Dave & John look at the Executive and what its powers were intended to be versus what they have become in Article 2 Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

View Details

Shay's Rebellion and it's influence on Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution. Considered one of the most intense and best episode of Constitution Thursday, Dave & John view the rebellion through the events of the life of Captain Henry Gale, who was sentenced to death for his role in the rebellion.

View Details

The idea banning of Titles of Nobility by the Constitution is "the cornerstone" of republican government. Dave & John look at the Emoluments clause of Article 1 Section 9

View Details

The English Civil war sets the stage for the Framers to outline how to handle export duties, Port preferences and Appropriations. Dave & John look at Article 1 section 9

View Details

The CISPA law has many people on edge and Dave & John have question about it and riect taxes as outlined in the Constitution Article 1 Section 9

View Details

A GOP Politician gets into hot water when she is outed smoking a bong, kissing a girl and liking it. But what about that there 1st Amendment? Dave & John take a look at the matter

View Details

Dave & John look at the writ of habeus corpus, bill of attainders and ex post facto laws.

View Details

In 1847 a n Ohio abolutionist challenges the Consitutionality after he helps slaves escape from the south and is sued by the Slaveowners.

View Details

A hotel in downtown Atlanta tests the powers of Congress to protect the rights of Individuals. Dave & John wrap up the look at the Powers of Congress.

View Details

The State of Maryland decides to test the powers of Congress and the relationship between the Stats and the Federal government. Dave & John continue their look at Article 1 and the Powers of Congress

View Details

Dave's all time favorite School House Rock song takes the boys intot he process of how a bill becomes a law

View Details

Dave & John begin the look at the Powers of Congress, including taxation

View Details

A lawsuit is settled over halal food at a McDonalds. But was it really about food or was it about the 1st amendment? Dave & John take a look at what happens when attempts to silence free speech over religious issues clash.

View Details

Dave & John look at Artcle 1 Sections 3-5.

View Details

The 3/5th’s compromise was never about lowering the dignity or the humanity of those in bondage. It was about finding a way through Union to free them once and for all. So that all men in America might freely enjoy the unalienable rights endowed to them by their Creator, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

View Details

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

View Details

In February of 1810, the British cargo brig, Aurora, found herself impounded and her cargo seized in New Orleans as a consequence of a Congressional action that made sense, but like so much of what Congress did (and does) contained more than it seemed at face value. In short, the Congress passed a law in 1809 that said that Britain and France were violating US neutrality on the open ocean by seizing US vessels and cargos. To that end, the law they passed made it legal for the US to seize and impound British and French cargos and vessels IF – and that is the most important part – the President decided after a certain date that Britain and France had not mended their ways.

View Details

When Inigo Montoya’s job went wrong, he lived by a single rule – go back to the beginning. While Constitution Thursday hadn’t “gone wrong,” it was time to step back and consider whether or not it was time to “go back to the beginning?” So Dave & John head back to the start of the Constitution, where the begin with the Preamble and the wonderful story of Gouverneur Morris and his wooden leg.

View Details

A California Raisin Farmerfaces off against the Department of Agriculture over the taking of his raisins for the governments "Raisin Reserve"

View Details

In one of the all-time favorite episodes of Constitutiuon Thursday, Dave and John look at the 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and the need for warrants after a Park Ranger is accused of selling Eagle parts to Native Americans

View Details

Dave and John look at the 12th Amendment and the Election of 1800

View Details

Dave and John look at how the 3rd protects from intrusion

View Details

Dave and John look at the 9th Amendment and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson

View Details

Dave and John talk aboutt he 4th Amendment and exigent Circumstances

View Details

Dave and John talk the 1st Amendment and the Establishemt of Religion Clause

View Details

Dave & John talk about the 17th Amendment

View Details

Dave & John look at the 4th Amendment

View Details

Dave and John talk about the 5th Amendment right to confront one accuser

View Details

Dave & John talk about The 1st Amendment and Religion

View Details

Gary Kreep is interviewed

View Details

The history of the 2nd amendment

View Details

Dave & John talk about the right we have to associate as we see fit, espcially in light of Prop 14

View Details

The Danbury Baptist Letter and the Freedom of Religion

View Details

The Supreme Court issues its ruling on the Affordable Care Acts Individual Mandate

View Details

Althought this is not an "official" episode of Constitution Thursday, this was the moment that Dave and John celebrated Flag Day in one of the best moments of Afternoons Live with Dave & John of all time...

View Details

1st Amendment - a Sheriff's race heats up when the incumbent fires a deputy for "liking" his opponents Facebook page

View Details

Dave interviews Susan Shelly about her book and the concept of incorportaion

View Details

The 1st Amendment and SOPA/PIPA

View Details

Federalist #12

View Details

Federalist #57

View Details

Dave interviews Josh Charles about his new book, "The Original Argument," which is a modern translation of The Federalist Papers

View Details

A movement to make the popular vote winner the President is misguided and defeats the purposes of the Constittuion.

View Details

Dave looks back at what he has learned on Constitution Thursday

View Details

AMENDMENT XXVII No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

View Details

John Wilkes and the 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

View Details

AMENDMENT XXVI

Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

View Details

Del Wilbur interview

AMENDMENT XXV

Section 1 In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2 Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3 Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4 Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

View Details

AMENDMENT XXIV

Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

View Details

Article 2 Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

View Details

AMENDMENT XXIII

Section 1 The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

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.

Section 2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

View Details

AMENDMENT XXII

Section 1 No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2 This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

View Details

21st Amendment

Section 1 The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2 The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3 This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

View Details

17th Amendment

Section 1 After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2 The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3 This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

View Details

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. - 19th Amendment

View Details

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. -17th Amendment

View Details

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. - 16th Amendment

View Details

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments

View Details

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - 1th Amendment

View Details

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - 14th Amendment Sect 1

View Details

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. - XI Amendment

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 the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. - Amendment XII

View Details

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment

View Details

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

View Details

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. - 8th Amendment

View Details

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. - 6th Amendment

View Details

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. - 3rd Amendment

View Details

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

View Details

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment

View Details

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment

View Details

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment

View Details

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment

View Details

Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

View Details

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

View Details

ARTICLE V: AMENDMENT

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

View Details

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 1

View Details

The McDonald ruling from the Supreme Court incorporates the 2nd Amendment

View Details

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1

View Details

Federalist #78 and the Judiciary

View Details

Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

View Details

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

View Details

Article II and How we elect a President

View Details

Article 1 Section 10

View Details

Religion and the Constitution Framers

View Details

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1

View Details

What constitutes a valid Constitutional Militia?

View Details

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

View Details

Article 1 Sect 7 - All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

View Details

Congress is debating using the reconcilliation process to pass Obamacare

View Details

The restrictions of Power of the Executive

View Details

Article I vests legislative power in the Congress of the United States

View Details

A look at the Preamble to the Constitution

View Details

Constitution Thursday begins