Changes

'''I. Introduction'''

'''I. Introduction'''

We’ve had two lectures and two homework assignments covering the [[U.S. Constitution]].  At this point, you know more about the Constitution than 99% of the public.  You probably know more about the Constitution than most of our politicians!

We’ve had two lectures and two homework assignments covering the [[U.S. Constitution]].  At this point, you know more about the [[Constitution]] than 99% of the public.  You probably know more about the [[Constitution]] than most of our [[politician]]s!

Why do people know so little about the Constitution?  Because there are political reasons not to teach or talk about the Constitution.  The Constitution imposes limits on government power.  It stands in the way of globalism.  It ensures accountability.  Above all, the Constitution reduces the power of elected officials and the media.  There is also nothing newsworthy about the Constitution.  You never see the Constitution on the evening news, or a picture of a president or congressman reading it.

Why do people know so little about the [[Constitution]]?  Because there are [[politics|political]] reasons not to teach or talk about the [[Constitution]].  The [[Constitution]] imposes limits on [[government]] power.  It stands in the way of [[globalism]].  It ensures accountability.  Above all, the Constitution reduces the power of elected officials and the [[media]].  There is also nothing newsworthy about the [[Constitution]].  You never see the [[Constitution]] on the evening news, or a picture of a [[president]] or [[congressman]] reading it.

Even law school students fail to learn the Constitution.  They enormous time and money on law school, but at the end do not know much more about the Constitution than when they started.  But one-quarter of the bar exam, which everyone must pass in order to practice law, is on the Constitution.  Those who do learn the Constitution have an enormous advantage.

Even law school students fail to learn the [[Constitution]].  They enormous time and money on law school, but at the end do not know much more about the [[Constitution]] than when they started.  But one-quarter of the bar exam, which everyone must pass in order to practice law, is on the [[Constitution]].  Those who do learn the [[Constitution]] have an enormous advantage.

Knowing the Constitution helps non-lawyers also.  Almost everything today implicates constitutional issues.  What are your rights if you’re told you cannot chop down a tree on your property?  Or if you are in a car that is stopped by the police?  Or if want to stage a protest against something government is doing?  Learn the Constitution once, use it for a lifetime.  It’s the law of our land.

Knowing the [[Constitution]] helps non-[[lawyer]]s also.  Almost everything today implicates [[constitution]]al issues.  What are your rights if you’re told you cannot chop down a tree on your property?  Or if you are in a car that is stopped by the police?  Or if want to stage a protest against something government is doing?  Learn the [[Constitution]] once, use it for a lifetime.  It’s the law of our land.

'''II.  Why is the Constitution so Successful?'''

'''II.  Why is the Constitution so Successful?'''

Let’s pause for a moment and consider why the Constitution has endured and thrived for over 200 years, producing the most productive society the world has ever known.

Let’s pause for a moment and consider why the [[Constitution]] has endured and thrived for over 200 years, producing the most productive society the world has ever known.

What is the secret to its success?  Why is it such a marvelous piece of work?  Think of your own reasons for a moment.

What is the secret to its success?  Why is it such a marvelous piece of work?  Think of your own reasons for a moment.

Here are my reasons why the Constitution is so great:

Here are my reasons why the [[Constitution]] is so great:

1.  It was the product of prayer and the religious spirit that pervaded the colonies.

1.  It was the product of [[prayer]] and the religious spirit that pervaded the colonies.

2.  It was supervised by George Washington, a completely selfless leader.  His refusal to seek power or control required everyone else to act likewise.

2.  It was supervised by [[George Washington]], a completely selfless leader.  His refusal to seek power or control required everyone else to act likewise.

3.  It embraced rule of law rather than rule by man, rejecting all forms of nobility and rejecting even a special title for the president.

3.  It embraced rule of [[law]] rather than rule by [[man]], rejecting all forms of [[nobility]] and rejecting even a special title for the [[president]].

4.  It welcomed and effectively used the input of 55 earnest, dedicated persons.  When coordinated, the output of many can far exceed the output of a few.

4.  It welcomed and effectively used the input of 55 earnest, dedicated persons.  When coordinated, the output of many can far exceed the output of a few.

5.  It was designed for approval by a public that was skeptical of government.

5.  It was designed for approval by a [[public]] that was skeptical of [[government]].

6.  It completely ignored the media.

6.  It completely ignored the [[media]].

Perhaps you have your own suggestions, or disagree with some of mine above.  At any rate, this is worth reflection: why is the Constitution one of the greatest documents of all time?  Why has it been so respected and successful?  Where would this country be without it?

Perhaps you have your own suggestions, or disagree with some of mine above.  At any rate, this is worth reflection: why is the [[Constitution]] one of the greatest documents of all time?  Why has it been so respected and successful?  Where would this country be without it?

'''III. Interpretation'''

'''III. Interpretation'''

Anything expressed in language is immediately subject to different interpretations.  The Constitution could not avoid this problem.  Sometimes interpretations can be a ruse for attempts to change the intended meaning.

Anything expressed in language is immediately subject to different interpretations.  The [[Constitution]] could not avoid this problem.  Sometimes interpretations can be a ruse for attempts to change the intended meaning.

By way of example, let’s look at the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  One of our students thinks it is the most important clause in the Bill of Rights.  This Clause guarantees that no one “shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  Where did it come from?  What does it mean?

By way of example, let’s look at the [[Double Jeopardy Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment]].  One of our students thinks it is the most important clause in the [[Bill of Rights]].  This Clause guarantees that no one “shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  Where did it come from?  What does it mean?

It’s easier to state what it means than to figure out where it came from.  In it simplest terms, it means a particular government cannot try a criminal defendant again after he has been acquitted.  There are nuances beyond that basic rule, but this is the easiest way to remember it.

It’s easier to state what it means than to figure out where it came from.  In it simplest terms, it means a particular [[government]] cannot try a criminal defendant again after he has been acquitted.  There are nuances beyond that basic rule, but this is the easiest way to remember it.

In Roman law, the Digest of Justinian required that “the governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of a crime of which he had been acquitted.”  The Roman jurist Paulus remarked that “after a public acquittal a defendant could again be prosecuted by his informer within thirty days, but after that time this cannot be done.”

In [[Roman]] law, the Digest of Justinian required that “the governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of a crime of which he had been acquitted.”  The [[Roman]] jurist Paulus remarked that “after a public acquittal a defendant could again be prosecuted by his informer within thirty days, but after that time this cannot be done.”

England claims to have started the modern version of protection against double jeopardy in the 1170s, based on the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket after he had dispute with King Henry II.  The perpetrators were tried and convicted in church (ecclesiastical) courts, which the King said prevented them from being retried in his own courts.  The murderers were knights of the King’s court, so he wasn’t anxious to retry them anyway.

[[England]] claims to have started the modern version of protection against [[double jeopardy]] in the 1170s, based on the murder of Archbishop [[Thomas Becket]] after he had dispute with King [[Henry II]].  The perpetrators were tried and convicted in church (ecclesiastical) courts, which the King said prevented them from being retried in his own courts.  The murderers were knights of the King’s court, so he wasn’t anxious to retry them anyway.

The famous English legal scholar, Sir William Blackstone, described the protection against double jeopardy as the “universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.”  That was just prior to the American Revolution.

The famous English legal scholar, Sir [[William Blackstone]], described the protection against double jeopardy as the “universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.”  That was just prior to the [[American Revolution]].

But last year, English Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed allowing retrial of criminal defendants in England in order to strengthen victims’ rights.  So the English form of the rule is not as strong as the American form.

But last year, English Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] proposed allowing retrial of criminal defendants in England in order to strengthen victims’ rights.  So the English form of the rule is not as strong as the [[America]]n form.

Among the colonies, only New Hampshire had a clause in its constitution protecting against double jeopardy.  When Maryland ratified the Constitution, it called for addition of this civil liberty.

Among the colonies, only [[New Hampshire]] had a clause in its constitution protecting against double jeopardy.  When [[Maryland]] ratified the [[Constitution]], it called for addition of this civil liberty.

But New York was the 800-pound gorilla, meaning it had enormous influence.  It demanded a double jeopardy clause when it ratified the Constitution and called for another constitutional convention.  New York endorsed this version: “That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

But [[New York]] was the 800-pound gorilla, meaning it had enormous influence.  It demanded a [[double jeopardy clause]] when it ratified the [[Constitution]] and called for another constitutional convention.  [[New York]] endorsed this version: “That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

James Madison responded to New York’s demand by proposing this clause: “no person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offence.”  But this is not the version that was ultimately adopted, as the Founders preferred Blackstone’s language.

[[James Madison]] responded to [[New York]]’s demand by proposing this clause: “no person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offence.”  But this is not the version that was ultimately adopted, as the Founders preferred Blackstone’s language.

Why?  To minimize problems of interpretation.  Blackstone’s language forbids a second trial regardless of the outcome of the first.  Protection against double jeopardy guards against multiple punitive ordeals, not just successive punishments.

Why?  To minimize problems of interpretation.  Blackstone’s language forbids a second trial regardless of the outcome of the first.  Protection against double jeopardy guards against multiple punitive ordeals, not just successive punishments.

But ambiguities still remain.  The federal government, for example, asserts the power to prosecute someone who was acquitted in state court for the same crime.  The theory is that the federal government is a sovereign different from the state government, and thus can act indepedently.

But ambiguities still remain.  The federal government, for example, asserts the power to prosecute someone who was acquitted in [[state]] [[court]] for the same crime.  The theory is that the federal government is a sovereign different from the state government, and thus can act indepedently.

Let’s turn to the Second Amendment: “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.”

Let’s turn to the Second Amendment: “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.”