In Plato's work, laws are intended to establish a self-controlled society; to that end, laws need to be virtuous. This virtue is established in the preamble—the soul of the law—which sets the tone for the people to freely comply with the law. Hence every law must be headed by a preamble justifying its provisions; further, the preamble must be rhetorical in character: it must not only instruct, but persuade.
Only if a man ignores the preambles, must the sanction of actual law be applied. Plato's notion of a preamble is meant to justify the law. A good preamble would persuade the people to obey the law, not because of civil or criminal sanctions but because it is a good law.
The preamble of the U. Constitution is an example of Plato's concept of a preamble because it is persuasive, symbolic, and, generally, has no legal force. An opposite example of a non—legally binding preamble, which has no persuasive power, is the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Another reason might be that, unlike Plato's preamble the preamble to the Canadian Charter has no persuasive value. In order to determine whether the secession of Quebec was constitutionally valid, the Court analyzed that preamble's content to determine the fundamental values underlying the Canadian Constitution. The interpretive role of preambles is rooted in the common law tradition.
This common law rule remains effective on the constitutional level in states in which the constitution's preamble embodies a guiding framework for constitutional interpretation. When several interpretations exist, courts prefer the option consonant with the preamble. While the preamble is not an independent source of rights, it is an inspiration for those rights. The use of preambles as a tool in constitutional interpretation is common in civil law systems, as well.
The Court ruled that mastering Estonian—the state's official language—is a legitimate requirement in light of the preamble. It held that a political association that overtly denies the right of Macedonian self-determination is legally forbidden. A recent example of the interpretive role of preambles comes from Germany. On June 30, , the German Constitutional Court decided that, in principle, no incompatibility exists between the German Grundgesetz and the Treaty of Lisbon and thus laid the groundwork for completion of the ratification process.
The question was whether the treaty overrides the German constitutional order in a way that requires a constitutional amendment. The Court held that the treaty does not violate German sovereignty, although its confirmation does require some legislation processes. The German preamble, generally, does not enjoy legal force in German constitutional law.
However, the Treaty of Lisbon decision was not the first to invoke the preamble. Another example was the decision regarding the treaty signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. On December , after the treaty on the relationship between the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic was signed, a petition challenging the treaty was placed before the Constitutional Court claiming that the treaty, which seemed to support the idea that West and East Germany were two separate and independent states, violated the unification clause of the preamble.
In determining whether the treaty was compatible with the Basic Law, the Court addressed the preamble. Preambles can also be legally binding constitutional clauses and serve as independent sources for rights and obligations.
While fundamental political decisions may appear in the text of the constitution, or not be in the text of the constitution at all, they most often appear in the preamble. The preamble to the Constitution did not originally enjoy binding legal force nor was it even considered an integral part of the Constitution.
On July 16, , the Conseil Constitutionnel recognized the preamble's binding force as an independent legal source of human rights. Interestingly, at the time it was drafted, the preamble did not enjoy any legal status.
Thus, the Conseil Constitutionnel, through a reference to the preamble in the preamble, effectively granted the preamble a higher status than it had previously enjoyed. Although not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, the rights to strike, freedom of association, privacy, education, freedom of conscience, freedom of movement, and due process were all thereby recognized as constitutionally protected rights.
It applied an interesting method of judicial interpretation according to which the preamble, the declaration, and the fundamental principles of the Republic were all granted constitutional legal status ex post facto. India is another example that illustrates the growing use of preambles in constitutional interpretation.
In a nearly thousand-page benchmark decision, 97 the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the preamble is part of the Constitution and enjoys legal force.
The justices inquired into the theory of preambles and their uses. Some even cited American case law and Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States to conclude that the preamble is the key to understanding the Constitution and interpreting its clauses. The preamble, together with the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy—the most important parts of the Indian Constitution—constitute the core of the constitution. Unlike France, India declared that the preamble cannot, in and of itself, impose additional rights to those explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the courts regularly resort to using the preamble when the text of the Constitution is vague. A unique example of a substantive preamble appears in Nepal. Nepal is unique not only for the specific provision indicating the legal status of the preamble but also for taking additional measures to protect the preamble's spirit.
For Schmitt, constitutional laws may be amended, and even eliminated, by adhering to the amendment procedure of the constitution. Fundamental political decisions, however, cannot be amended or eliminated in the same way.
The Dayton Agreement divided the republic into two separate entities: the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska RS , each with its own constitution. Hence, the Constitutional Court must establish in substance what specific rights or obligations follow from the constitutional principles of the Preambles of both the Constitution of BiH and the Constitution of RS. This survey demonstrates the growing use of preambles in constitutional adjudication.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to generalize under what circumstances it is likely that a preamble may play a functional role, whether interpretive or substantive. In some cases, preambles are more substantive when there is no explicit bill of rights in the constitution, as in France. In other cases, as in India, preambles are more likely to be substantive when they set up concrete norms rather than abstract ideas, such as happiness or love.
On the other hand, when a gap between the content of the preamble and the text of the constitution exists, as in Canada, the preamble is less likely to play a role in constitutional interpretation. Nonetheless, going back to Hans Kelsen, the legal status of the preamble is still to be considered functional.
It has an ideological rather than a juristic character. A statement whose meaning is to establish an obligation is a norm. One question that arises is why would a preamble not be regarded as binding in the first place? Why is it required of those who want the preamble to have a legal meaning to make a case for its functionality?
In many instances, it is clear that justices in various states have paid particular attention to the legal status of the U. It does appear peculiar that one of the most comprehensive studies on the legal status of the U. Preambles are playing an increasing role in constitutional interpretation.
Constitutional framers either can determine the legal status of the preamble in the constitution themselves or let the courts decide the issue. The preamble's strength lies not only in the legal sphere but also in its social function and effect. However, just as preambles can foster integration by forging a common identity, so also they can be disintegrative, driving people apart and contributing to social tension.
This occurs when a preamble reflects only the story of a dominant group. If the preamble states the fundamental principles underlying the constitution and enjoys legal status—that is, these principles are no longer political morality or nonbinding historical statements—it is necessary to consider what is written therein. Macedonia was established as an independent state after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The state includes a substantial Albanian national minority as well as other minorities , variously estimated at from one-fourth to one-third of the population.
During the s, Albanian factions began to employ violence in order to force a constitutional amendment that would transform Macedonia into a binational state and grant Albanians full territorial and political autonomy in areas with an Albanian majority.
Under pressure from the Albanian minority and the international community, the Macedonian preamble was amended in November following the Ohrid Agreement in August By including only a limited national narrative and expressing future aspirations of a specific national group, the original Macedonian preamble had excluded the Albanian minority from the mainstream of Macedonian life; it thereby weakened the Constitution's political legitimacy.
Yet, one can be skeptical regarding the efficacy of such a preamble in those nation-states that, by definition, are not equally accepting of all national groups. More importantly, the amendment to the preamble has not resolved the social conflict. On the contrary, the deletion of Macedonia as a nation-state caused resentment among ethnic Macedonians, who felt that this change had been forced upon them by violence and international pressure. They object to any preamble that falls short of referring to a fully binational Macedonia.
This case thus emphasizes the power of preambles either to unify or to divide political resources; it also sheds light on the limits of constitutional design to ameliorate ethnic conflicts or foster a common national identity. Israel is considered to be among the few democracies not having a formal written constitution.
In fact, one of the historical reasons for the failure to establish a constitution stems from the inability to achieve consent regarding the preamble's content. These amendments included two important sections declaring, for the first time, that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state and that human rights are to be respected in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Articles 1 and 1A of the Basic Laws read as follows: I. Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. This amendment is consonant with most of the substantive requirements of a preamble; it recognizes the fundamental values of the state of Israel and its national character.
It was also the first time in Israel's legislative history that the Declaration of Independence was incorporated into law. The legal status of the Declaration of Independence has changed over the years. Soon after the state's foundation, the Supreme Court refused to grant it legal status; however, this attitude changed with the Supreme Court's progressive reliance on the human rights guaranteed in the declaration for constitutional interpretation.
The Court has repeatedly ruled that the declaration serves as a political act with legal implications that should be respected by all authorities, although it could not disqualify acts of parliament. The Jewish and democratic character of Israel is its basic constitutional structure.
This structure, as former president of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak argues, is eternal and, therefore, an amendment that denies it would be an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Arab citizens feel that the Basic Laws have excluded them from Israel's social arrangement and have ignored their identity, culture, and heritage. Australia was established in through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act that was passed by the British Parliament and established Australia as an indissoluble federal commonwealth; the act's preamble has been regarded as equivalent to a constitution's preamble.
The preamble outlines the structure and powers of the government. We should all try to understand the first, second and fifth amendments-- and the other narrow slices of the Constitution that current debates center on.
But we must go beyond the details - the Articles and Amendments can not be understood in isolation. The Preamble of the United States Constitution states: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
State Board, U. The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution clearly intended to create a sustainable society, and instructed their government to respect that fact. In part, this is because they thought the structure of government they were creating would ensure liberty. Also, they were afraid that enumerating some rights inherently would be taken to deny the existence of other rights that were not mentioned.
They wanted liberty to be broadly protected and not confined to specific aspects of freedom mentioned in the text of the Constitution. Equality is not mentioned in the Preamble. This is not surprising for a Constitution that explicitly protected the institution of slavery and gave women no rights. But as the Supreme Court has explained for over a half century, equality is an implicit and inherent part of liberty. The Preamble describes the core values that the Constitution exists to achieve: democratic government, effective governance, justice, freedom, and equality.
While the Preamble does not itself confer powers and rights, it has significant implications both for how the Constitution is to be interpreted and applied and who has the power of constitutional interpretation—the two biggest overall questions of Constitutional Law. Consider two big-picture ways that the Preamble affects how the Constitution is to be interpreted. This is at once both obvious and hugely important. This defines the territory and boundaries of legitimate constitutional argument: the enterprise of constitutional interpretation is to seek to faithfully understand, within the context of the document including the times and places in which it was written and adopted , the words, phrases, and structural implications of the written text.
The words of the Constitution are not optional. By the same token, where the provisions of the Constitution do not set forth a rule—where they leave matters open—decision in such matters must remain open to the people, acting through the institutions of representative democracy. And finally, where the Constitution says nothing on a topic, it simply says nothing on the topic and cannot be used to strike down the decisions of representative government.
The Preamble does not confer powers or rights, but the provisions that follow should be interpreted in a fashion consistent with the purposes for which they were enacted. No one can doubt, that this does not enlarge the powers of congress to pass any measures, which they may deem useful for the common defence.
To ensure equality among the states, the Constitution prohibits states from imposing taxes on goods coming into their state from another state and from favoring the ports of one state over the ports of others. Article I, Section 9, also requires that Congress produce a regular accounting of the monies the federal government spends.
Rejecting the monarchy of England, the Constitution also specifically prohibits Congress from granting a title of nobility to any person and prohibits public officials from accepting a title of nobility, office, or gift from any foreign country or monarch without congressional approval. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility. As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings bills of attainder , that make something illegal retroactively ex post facto laws or that interfere with legal contracts.
No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.
But in chusing 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. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. Article II, Section 1 establishes that the president has the power to run the executive branch of the government.
This section, later modified by Amendments XII and XXV, outlines who is eligible to serve as president, establishes the Electoral College the means by which the president and vice president are elected , and authorizes Congress to determine who will replace the president and vice president should they be unable to serve during their term of office.
Article II, Section 1 establishes that the president and vice president are to be elected at the same time and serve the same four-year term. Until , presidents could serve for as many four-year terms as they could win. But after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for four terms, Congress passed and the states ratified Amendment XXII, which limits a president to two terms eight years in office. In the rare case that a vice president or other official takes over for a president who has stepped down or died in office and serves more than two years of the remaining term, he or she is limited to one new term.
Rather than being elected directly by the people, the president is elected by members of the Electoral College, which is created by Article II, Section 1. Each state is entitled to the number of electors equal to the combined number of their representatives and senators in Congress.
Neither members of Congress nor other federal officials may serve as electors. Each state legislature decides how members of the Electoral College are to be selected and how they are to vote. For example, some states select electors at primary elections or at caucuses.
In most states, electors vote for the presidential candidate who won the vote in their state. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, where a candidate wins one electoral vote for each congressional district that he or she wins and two electoral votes if he or she wins the overall popular vote in the state.
The creation of the Electoral College gives more power to the smaller states, rather than letting the people in the most populous states control who becomes president. Additional rules were added in , when Amendment XII was adopted. For example, the amendment creates the way a president is selected when neither candidate obtains a majority of votes in the Electoral College. There are three minimum requirements to be elected president: one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and must be at least 35 years old.
Although Article II, Section 1 originally provided who should become president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, Amendment XXV, added in , modified the line of succession. The president also is prohibited from receiving any other type of compensation or perks while in office. 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 other- wise 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. The president serves not only as the head of the executive branch of government, but also as the commander in chief of the armed forces including state national guards when they are called on to serve with the federal armed forces.
As chief executive, the president runs the different executive agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Health and Human Services. The president has the power to pardon let free any person who has committed a federal crime, except in cases of impeachment. With permission from two-thirds of the senators present, the president can make treaties agreements with other countries.
With the approval of a majority of senators, the president makes a number of key appointments. These include U. Congress may choose to require Senate approval of other presidential appointments or let the president, courts or department heads appoint staff and agency employees without approval by the Senate.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
During his or her term, the president must report to Congress about how things are going in the country. Every president from Jefferson to Taft fulfilled this duty with a written statement submitted to Congress. The president also has the power, in extreme cases, to call both the House of Representatives and the Senate together for a special session. The president is given the power to meet with representatives from other nations on behalf of the United States and to otherwise run the country by enforcing the laws and directing officers and staff.
The Constitution provides that the president, vice president, and other federal officers can be removed from office upon impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other serious crimes.
The process was begun only three times in U. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives with a vote to impeach. Then the president or other accused government official stands trial for the accusations in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides at an impeachment trial of the president.
In all impeachment trials, members of the House serve as prosecutors and the full Senate sits as the jury. The accused official must be convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate to be removed from office. 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.
Article III establishes the federal court system. The first section creates the U. The Supreme Court has final say on matters of federal law that come before it. Today, the U. Supreme Court has nine justices who are appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate. Congress has the power to create and organize the lower federal courts. Today, there are lower federal courts in every state. A case is filed and tried in the federal district courts and in some specialty courts, such as admiralty or bankruptcy courts.
The trial courts look at the facts of the case and decide guilt or innocence or which side is right in an argument or dispute. The courts of appeal hear appeals of the losing parties. The appellate courts look at whether the trial was fair, whether the process followed the rules, and whether the law was correctly applied. This prevents members of Congress from punishing a judge when they do not like one of his or her decisions.
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;-] 8 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 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.
In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government. In , in the case of Marbury v. Madison , the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted Article III and Article VI to give the federal courts final say over the meaning of the federal Constitution and federal laws and the power to order state and federal officials to comply with its rulings.
The federal courts can make decisions only on cases that are brought to them by a person who is actually affected by the law. Federal courts are not allowed to create cases on their own, even if they believe a law is unconstitutional, nor are they allowed to rule on hypothetical scenarios. Almost all federal cases start in federal district courts, where motions are decided and trials held. The cases are then heard on appeal by the federal courts of appeal and then by the Supreme Court if four justices of the nine-member court decide to hear the case.
Congress can limit the power of the appeals courts by changing the rules about which cases can be appealed. State cases that involve an issue of federal law can also be heard by the Supreme Court after the highest court in the state rules or refuses to rule in the case. The Supreme Court accepts only a small number of cases for review, typically around 80 cases each year. In a small number of lawsuits— those involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, or where a state is a party— the Supreme Court is the first court to hear the case.
The federal courts also have final say over guilt or innocence in federal criminal cases. A defendant in a criminal case, except impeachment, has a right to have his or her case heard by a jury in the state where the crime occurred. 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.
Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution. He or she does not have to physically pick up a weapon and fight in combat against U. Actively helping the enemy by passing along classified information or supplying weapons, for example, can lead to charges of treason.
Vocal opposition to a U. A conviction of treason must be based either on an admission of guilt in open court or on the testimony of two witnesses. Congress may set the punishment, but it must be directed only at the guilty person and not at his or her friends or family if they were not involved in the crime. 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 ensures that states respect and honor the state laws and court orders of other states, even when their own laws are different.
For example, if citizens of New Jersey marry, divorce, or adopt children in New Jersey, Florida must recognize these actions as valid even if the marriage or divorce would not have been possible under Florida law. For example, Congress may pass a federal law that specifies how states must handle child custody disputes when state laws are different or that sets out the process by which a person winning a lawsuit in one state can enforce the order in another state.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states.
States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. For example, Arizona cannot prohibit New Mexico residents from traveling, owning property, or working in Arizona, nor can the state impose substantially different taxes on residents and nonresidents. But certain distinctions between residents and nonresidents— such as giving state residents a right to buy a hunting license at a lower cost— are permitted.
Article IV, Section 2 also establishes rules for when an alleged criminal flees to another state. It provides that the second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. The process used to return fugitives extradition was first created by Congress and originally enforced by the governors of each state.
Today courts enforce the return of accused prisoners. Fugitives do not need to have been charged with the crime in the first state in order to be captured in the second and sent back. Once returned, the state can charge the accused with any crime for which there is evidence. The fugitives from labor provision gave slave owners a nearly absolute right to recapture runaway slaves who fled to another state, even if slavery was outlawed in that state.
The adoption of Amendment XIII, which abolishes slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, nullified this provision. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Congress can admit new states into the Union, but a single state cannot create a new state within its boundaries. In addition, two states, or parts of states i. Oregon and Idaho or Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania cannot become states without the consent of the various state legislatures and Congress.
Although an original version of the Constitution included a requirement that each new state join the Union on equal footing with the other states, the language was removed before the document was approved. Nevertheless, Congress has always granted new states rights equal to those of existing states. Not all of the lands that are owned or controlled by the United States are states. Some lands are territories, and Congress has the power to sell off or regulate the territories.
This includes allowing U. In addition, this provision gives Congress the power to set rules for lands owned by the United States, such as the national parks and national forests.
The last sentence of this clause makes sure that nothing in the Constitution would harm the rights of either the federal government or the states in disputes over property. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive when the Legislature can-not be convened against domestic Violence.
This provision, known as the guarantee clause, is attributed to James Madison. It has not been widely interpreted, but scholars think it ensures that each state be run as a representative democracy, as opposed to a monarchy run by a king or queen or a dictatorship where one individual or group of individuals controls the government. Courts however have been reluctant to specify what exactly a republican form of government means, leaving that decision exclusively to Congress. The section also gives Congress the power and obligation to protect the states from an invasion by a foreign country, or from significant violent uprisings within each state.
It authorizes the legislature of each state or the executive, if the legislature cannot be assembled in time to request federal help with riots or other violence. 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.
Realizing that over time the nation may want to make changes to the Constitution, Article V establishes the amendment process. But unlike laws and regulations, which can be passed or amended by a simple majority of those voting in Congress, the Constitution is difficult to change.
An amendment can be offered in one of two ways: when two-thirds of the Senate 67 of senators and two-thirds of the House of Representatives of representatives call for a change to be made; or when two-thirds of the states 34 of 50 states call for a national constitutional convention a gathering of representatives of each state to make a change.
Once the amendment is proposed, three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions 38 of 50 states must vote to approve ratify the change.
An amendment becomes effective when the necessary states have ratified it. The article also forbids three specific amendments: that would deny a state its votes in the Senate, that before would enable Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves and that before would allow direct taxation except as based on the system of enumeration set out in Article I, Section 2.
As a result, the three-fifths compromise contained in Article I, Section 9 remained in place until when Congress banned the international slave trade. 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.
Often referred to as the supremacy clause, this article says that when state law is in conflict with federal law, federal law must prevail. Because of the great number of federal and state laws, many of which deal with the same or similar topics, there have been many lawsuits claiming that state laws conflict with federal laws and are therefore invalid.
In these lawsuits, the Supreme Court generally looks at whether Congress has established a national regulatory scheme and if so, states cannot regulate in that area.
The Court also looks at whether the state law directly interferes or is in conflict with federal law. In all of these cases, the supremacy clause ensures that federal law takes priority over, or preempts, state law. Article VI also provides that both federal and state officials— including legislators and judges— must obey the U. Constitution state officials have a duty to obey their own state constitutions and laws as well.
To ensure freedom of religion, this article ensures that no public official be required to practice or pledge allegiance to any particular religion. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
0コメント