Anaya Nolan
The process of amending the United States Constitution is a difficult and time-consuming endeavour. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This rigorous process ensures that any changes made to the Constitution are carefully considered and have a significant impact on the nation. While the Constitution has been amended 27 times since its drafting in 1787, there have been instances where laws passed by Congress were deemed to violate the Constitution and its amendments. In these cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to declare such laws unconstitutional, as seen in cases such as Aptheker v. Secretary of State and United States v. Klein.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the amendment process | The amendment process is very difficult and time-consuming. |
| Number of amendments to the Constitution | The Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1787. |
| Role of the President | The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process. |
| Role of Congress | Congress proposes an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. |
| Role of State Legislatures | State legislatures can call for a constitutional convention with a two-thirds majority. |
| Ratification process | After being proposed, an amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50). |
| Political fixes in the Constitution | Some argue that political fixes do not belong in the Constitution, with Prohibition being an example. |
| Supreme Court rulings | The Supreme Court has held certain Acts of Congress to be unconstitutional, violating various Amendments. |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
The Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
In the United States, the Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, and the joint resolution does not require their signature or approval. Once an amendment is passed by Congress, it is then ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) to become part of the Constitution.
Now, onto the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which was part of the McCarran Internal Security Act. This Act was passed by Congress over the veto of President Harry Truman, four months into the Korean War. The Act required Communist organisations to register with the government and submit information about their membership, finances, and activities. This included the Communist Party and 24 other organisations charged as Communist, though none of them complied with the registration requirement.
Critics of the Act believed that it posed a significant risk to the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association. President Truman himself had vetoed the Act due to perceived constitutional problems, which were later uncovered by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the Supreme Court initially showed deference towards the Act, as seen in the case of Galvan v. Press, where the Court upheld the deportation of a Mexican citizen for their past Communist Party membership, even though such membership was legal at the time.
Over time, as McCarthyism waned, the Supreme Court adopted a more critical stance towards the Act. In 1964, the Court ruled Section 6 of the Act unconstitutional, as it prevented members of Communist parties from obtaining or using passports. The following year, in 1965, the Court invalidated the Act's requirement for Communist Party members to register with the government, citing that it violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Additionally, in 1967, the Supreme Court struck down the Act's provision prohibiting Communists from working for the federal government or at defence facilities, deeming it a violation of the First Amendment's right to freedom of association.
Non-Profit Organizations: Law Enforcers or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The Comstock Act
The majority of the Comstock Act is found in sections 1461 and 1462 of chapter 71, title 18 of the United States Code. The first of these sections, 1461, was enacted as a rider to the Post Office Consolidation Act of 1872. It defines the punishment for violating the Act as a fine, a jail sentence of up to 5 years for a first offense, up to 10 years for subsequent offenses, or a combination of a fine and jail time. The second section, 1462, criminalizes activities related to the mailing of information about obtaining articles that are already banned from being mailed.
There is one section of the Comstock Act found outside chapter 71, in 18 U.S.C. § 552, which pertains to customs officials acting as principals to certain activities. This section applies to abortion-related matters to the extent that they implicate the procurement of abortion. There are four elements to an offense under this section: the offender must be an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; they must knowingly aid or abet the specified offenses (importing, advertising, dealing, exhibiting, sending, or receiving); their aiding or abetting must implicate the use of mail; and the matter must be obscene, indecent, or crime-inciting.
The final section of the Comstock Act, found at 39 U.S.C. § 3001 (e), declares that unsolicited contraceptives are non-mailable unless the addressee is a manufacturer, trader, physician, nurse, pharmacist, hospital, or clinic. This provision has been ruled unconstitutional as applied to business mailings due to a First Amendment challenge.
Notarizing for Family: Can I Help My Brother-in-Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Muskrat vs. United States case
The process of amending the United States Constitution is a challenging and time-consuming endeavour, as the framers of the Constitution intended it to be. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787, and the process begins with a proposal by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.
The Muskrat case set a precedent for the interpretation of the Case or Controversy Clause, with the Supreme Court asserting its discretion in selecting cases that fall within its jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that its role is limited to deciding cases that present a genuine controversy and that it cannot be compelled to provide advisory opinions on legislative matters. This case highlighted the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the US government, reinforcing the independence of the judiciary and its authority to determine the types of cases it hears.
While the Muskrat decision remains valid case law, its impact has been somewhat diminished by subsequent developments, such as the approval of the declaratory judgment act. This act allows parties to seek a declaration of rights against each other even when no affirmative relief is being sought, potentially expanding the scope of cases that can be heard by the courts. Nevertheless, the Muskrat case continues to serve as an important reminder of the judicial branch's authority and the limitations on its powers under the US Constitution.
US Citizens: Lawful Permanent Residency Options
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The United States vs. Klein case
The facts of the case are as follows: V. F. Wilson, who had provided aid to the rebel confederacy during the Civil War, took an oath of allegiance to the United States in 1864. Wilson died in 1865, and his administrator, Klein, filed a petition in the Court of Claims seeking the proceeds from the sale of Wilson's cotton, which had been abandoned to US treasury agents. The Court of Claims ruled in Klein's favour in 1869, granting him $125,300. The United States government appealed this decision, arguing that Wilson's acceptance of a presidential pardon without a specific disclaimer of guilt was evidence that he had supported the Confederacy. Therefore, according to the law at the time, Wilson's estate was not entitled to property or sale proceeds.
The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, which had to consider the validity of the law passed by Congress that impaired the effect of presidential pardons. The Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority by encroaching on the powers of the judicial and executive branches. The decision emphasised the separation of powers under the Constitution and set a precedent for checking congressional overreach.
Cousins in Love: US Law's Complications
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Boyd vs. United States case
The Court's decision in this case had a notable impact on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, with the Court concluding that the search was "an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving searches and seizures, with Justice Bradley emphasising the importance of constitutional liberty and security.
The case also brought to light the complexities surrounding the collection of revenue and the validity of certain laws. The learned justice argued that the power to conduct searches and seizures, as authorised by the act of 1867, was necessary for efficient revenue collection. However, the Court also acknowledged the serious objections to the validity of the law, highlighting the challenging balance between efficient governance and citizens' rights.
Hospitals Can't Withhold Pto Payout: Know Your Rights
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution can be amended either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. A proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.
Yes, laws can be passed that violate amendments. For example, the Comstock Act of 1873 violated the First Amendment by barring unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives from being mailed. The Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 was also found to violate the Fifth Amendment.
If a law is passed that violates an amendment, it can be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, in the case of United States v. Klein (1872), the Supreme Court held that a provision of the Comstock Act interfered with the judicial power under Article III, § 1, and with the pardoning power under Article II, § 2, clause 1.
