What is the program about?
New! The Right to Bear Arms
With the March 2007 U.S. Court of Appeals decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, striking down a restrictive gun control law in Washington, DC, the decades-long debate about whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to "keep and bear arms" is again front and center. The last time the U.S. Supreme Court decided a Second Amendment case was in 1939. That case, U.S. v. Miller, was heard in the wake of Prohibition (1920-33) and the significant rise in 1920s and 30s of organized crime and associated gun violence. Some commentators are now predicting that a Parker appeal will likely be heard in the future by the Supreme Court—possibly bringing clarity to the meaning of the contentious Second Amendment through the high court for only the second time in over 50 years.
The Preamble
The Preamble was created at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 and was intended to introduce the Constitution and explain its purpose. However, the United States has changed dramatically since 1787. Women, free blacks, or men without property were not permitted to serve as delegates at the Convention. The founder's society was small and basically agrarian. Today, our country extends across the continent; we are no longer a nation of farmers; and our population is close to 300 million. Furthermore, all citizens regardless of sex, race, or class are constitutionally guaranteed the exercise of their citizenship rights. As our country has changed, our interpretation of phrases contained in the Preamble has also changed, necessitating a reevaluation of the values it expresses.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The ban on cruel and unusual punishment became part of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791 as the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. In the early years of the republic, the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" was interpreted as prohibiting torture and particularly barbarous punishments. Today, however, the phrase is most often associated with debates over capital punishment. In an era in which individuals wrongly convicted of capital crimes have been exonerated due to DNA evidence, examination of the meaning of the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" continues to be relevant.
War Powers
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between the executive and legislative branches. Whenever the U.S. military has become engaged in combat or war, issues about the appropriate division of power between the two branches have been raised. Traditionally, due to the executive's particular responsibility for national security, it has been viewed as less suited than the legislative branch to maintaining a balance between security measures and individual liberty. The debates about the appropriate division of war powers between the two branches and the role of each in preserving liberties have been played out daily in our newspapers since the September 11 terrorist attacks-making a consideration of these issues timely and relevant.
Separation of Powers
A key aspect of the founders' vision of "a more perfect union" was the division of power among three branches of government. The founders were concerned that the government they established not have all its powers concentrated in the hands of a few officials or single branch. They agreed with Montesquieu that if "the right of making and of enforcing the laws is vested in one and the same man, or the same body of men.there can be no liberty." Although the phrase "separation of powers" never appears in the Constitution, the doctrine is implicit in the form of government and powers set out in the Constitution. That the three government branches were to cooperate and have part of the power of the others to constrain overreaching, is also implicit. Current tensions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have again brought to fore the basic principles of separation of powers. The Terry Schiavo case and administration of the war on terror are just two examples of recent events that make public understanding of the separation of powers doctrine as important as ever.
The Advice and Consent of the Senate
Under Article II of the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial appointments take effect when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote. When those Constitutional provisions were ratified, U.S. Senators were not directly elected, but were appointed by state government legislative bodies. Likewise, the founder's society was small, relatively self-sufficient, and agrarian. Today, our country extends across the continent; we are no longer a nation of farmers; and, our economic and security interests are closely tied to those of other countries. The founders never envisioned the great need for, and expansion and increased role of, the federal judiciary. They never envisioned the great need for international cooperation so vital to our country's prosperity and security. The recent debate over the judicial filibuster, covered extensively by a media network, also never envisioned by the founders, was no less than a debate about the role and powers of the three branches of government in a country that is quite different in 2005 from our country in 1787.
An Establishment of Religion
One of the most contentious aspects of the role of the law in American life involves interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Most scholars agree that the founders intended to prevent the establishment of a national church, it was also intended to protect religious toleration and by 1833, the states had similar provisions in their constitutions. The extent to which the U.S. should be accommodating of religious practices in the public "square" and the extent to which a wall of separation should exist between the "secular" state and religion continues to evolve. And the Courts have far from banished religion from politics, the workplace, and the schools.
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment guarantees of our rights to be secure in our person, houses, papers, and effects protects two of our most fundamental constitutional values: privacy and protection from arbitrary government actions. Every Fourth Amendment case poses at least two questions for the courts: 1) Did the police action at issue really constitute a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Amendment? 2) If so, was it "unreasonable"? In answering those questions, courts must decide how to apply the Fourth Amendment guarantees to circumstances the founders could not have envisioned in 1791. Thus every major change in technology-be it the telephone, the automobile, or personal computer-has generated new lines of court cases. In addition, renewed concerns about national security and intelligence gathering capabilities have led Congress to pass legislation, such as the U.S.A. Patriot Act (2001), with implications for our privacy. Some commentators have maintained that The Patriot Act has given the government "too much power" to spy on us. Others maintain that serious threats require new and serious tools. We are living through an age of new frontiers for Fourth Amendment law.
With the March 2007 U.S. Court of Appeals decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, striking down a restrictive gun control law in Washington, DC, the decades-long debate about whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to "keep and bear arms" is again front and center. The last time the U.S. Supreme Court decided a Second Amendment case was in 1939. That case, U.S. v. Miller, was heard in the wake of Prohibition (1920-33) and the significant rise in 1920s and 30s of organized crime and associated gun violence. Some commentators are now predicting that a Parker appeal will likely be heard in the future by the Supreme Court—possibly bringing clarity to the meaning of the contentious Second Amendment through the high court for only the second time in over 50 years.
The Preamble
The Preamble was created at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 and was intended to introduce the Constitution and explain its purpose. However, the United States has changed dramatically since 1787. Women, free blacks, or men without property were not permitted to serve as delegates at the Convention. The founder's society was small and basically agrarian. Today, our country extends across the continent; we are no longer a nation of farmers; and our population is close to 300 million. Furthermore, all citizens regardless of sex, race, or class are constitutionally guaranteed the exercise of their citizenship rights. As our country has changed, our interpretation of phrases contained in the Preamble has also changed, necessitating a reevaluation of the values it expresses.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The ban on cruel and unusual punishment became part of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791 as the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. In the early years of the republic, the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" was interpreted as prohibiting torture and particularly barbarous punishments. Today, however, the phrase is most often associated with debates over capital punishment. In an era in which individuals wrongly convicted of capital crimes have been exonerated due to DNA evidence, examination of the meaning of the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" continues to be relevant.
War Powers
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between the executive and legislative branches. Whenever the U.S. military has become engaged in combat or war, issues about the appropriate division of power between the two branches have been raised. Traditionally, due to the executive's particular responsibility for national security, it has been viewed as less suited than the legislative branch to maintaining a balance between security measures and individual liberty. The debates about the appropriate division of war powers between the two branches and the role of each in preserving liberties have been played out daily in our newspapers since the September 11 terrorist attacks-making a consideration of these issues timely and relevant.
Separation of Powers
A key aspect of the founders' vision of "a more perfect union" was the division of power among three branches of government. The founders were concerned that the government they established not have all its powers concentrated in the hands of a few officials or single branch. They agreed with Montesquieu that if "the right of making and of enforcing the laws is vested in one and the same man, or the same body of men.there can be no liberty." Although the phrase "separation of powers" never appears in the Constitution, the doctrine is implicit in the form of government and powers set out in the Constitution. That the three government branches were to cooperate and have part of the power of the others to constrain overreaching, is also implicit. Current tensions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have again brought to fore the basic principles of separation of powers. The Terry Schiavo case and administration of the war on terror are just two examples of recent events that make public understanding of the separation of powers doctrine as important as ever.
The Advice and Consent of the Senate
Under Article II of the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial appointments take effect when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote. When those Constitutional provisions were ratified, U.S. Senators were not directly elected, but were appointed by state government legislative bodies. Likewise, the founder's society was small, relatively self-sufficient, and agrarian. Today, our country extends across the continent; we are no longer a nation of farmers; and, our economic and security interests are closely tied to those of other countries. The founders never envisioned the great need for, and expansion and increased role of, the federal judiciary. They never envisioned the great need for international cooperation so vital to our country's prosperity and security. The recent debate over the judicial filibuster, covered extensively by a media network, also never envisioned by the founders, was no less than a debate about the role and powers of the three branches of government in a country that is quite different in 2005 from our country in 1787.
An Establishment of Religion
One of the most contentious aspects of the role of the law in American life involves interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Most scholars agree that the founders intended to prevent the establishment of a national church, it was also intended to protect religious toleration and by 1833, the states had similar provisions in their constitutions. The extent to which the U.S. should be accommodating of religious practices in the public "square" and the extent to which a wall of separation should exist between the "secular" state and religion continues to evolve. And the Courts have far from banished religion from politics, the workplace, and the schools.
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment guarantees of our rights to be secure in our person, houses, papers, and effects protects two of our most fundamental constitutional values: privacy and protection from arbitrary government actions. Every Fourth Amendment case poses at least two questions for the courts: 1) Did the police action at issue really constitute a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Amendment? 2) If so, was it "unreasonable"? In answering those questions, courts must decide how to apply the Fourth Amendment guarantees to circumstances the founders could not have envisioned in 1791. Thus every major change in technology-be it the telephone, the automobile, or personal computer-has generated new lines of court cases. In addition, renewed concerns about national security and intelligence gathering capabilities have led Congress to pass legislation, such as the U.S.A. Patriot Act (2001), with implications for our privacy. Some commentators have maintained that The Patriot Act has given the government "too much power" to spy on us. Others maintain that serious threats require new and serious tools. We are living through an age of new frontiers for Fourth Amendment law.
