Changes

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 offense; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offense.

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 offense.”  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 independently.

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.”

It’s language is sloppy.  The [[preamble]] (the first half) allows an argument by those who favor gun control to claim the [[Amendment]] protects only a “well regulated Militia,” not an individual right to bear arms.  [[Gun control]] advocates claim the preamble limits the scope of the remainder of the [[Amendment]].

It’s language is sloppy.  The preamble (the first half) allows an argument by those who favor gun control to claim the Amendment protects only a “well regulated Militia,” not an individual right to bear arms.  Gun control advocates claim the preamble limits the scope of the remainder of the Amendment.

Supporters of the right to bear arms rebut this by saying that all able-bodied men were considered part of militia at the time this [[Amendment]] was ratified.  Thus the right is held by everyone capable of using guns.  Moreover, the preamble appears merely to be background to what follows, rather than a limitation on it.

Supporters of the right to bear arms rebut this by saying that all able-bodied men were considered part of militia at the time this Amendment was ratified.  Thus the right is held by everyone capable of using guns.  Moreover, the preamble appears merely to be background to what follows, rather than a limitation on it.

What do you think?

What do you think?

'''IV.  Legislative History'''

'''IV.  Legislative History'''

The Constitution is a model of clarity compared with what [[Congress]] passes each year.  Ambiguities pervade laws passed by [[Congress]].  Often the congressmen argue among themselves, and then pass language that is a compromise.  They may not even agree what the language means at the time it is passed.

The Constitution is a model of clarity compared with what Congress passes each year.  Ambiguities pervade laws passed by Congress.  Often the congressmen argue among themselves, and then pass language that is a compromise.  They may not even agree what the language means at the time it is passed.

Senators like [[Ted Kennedy]] make comments on the [[Senate]] floor and in committee reports about what they feel the statutes mean.  Sometimes lengthy descriptions of intent are inserted by a few senators into these reports.  Courts then pick up on these comments to find meanings that may not have been shared by most of the supporters of the statutes.

Senators like Ted Kennedy make comments on the Senate floor and in committee reports about what they feel the statutes mean.  Sometimes lengthy descriptions of intent are inserted by a few senators into these reports.  Courts then pick up on these comments to find meanings that may not have been shared by most of the supporters of the statutes.

The reports and statements by congressmen in connection with passage of a bill are known as its “legislative history.”  For most of our history, it was popular for courts to rely heavily on legislative history in interpreting a statute.  To combat this, Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and the first [[George Bush]] began attaching their own interpretations of statutes to what they signed into law.

The reports and statements by congressmen in connection with passage of a bill are known as its “legislative history.”  For most of our history, it was popular for courts to rely heavily on legislative history in interpreting a statute.  To combat this, Presidents Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush began attaching their own interpretations of statutes to what they signed into law.

What did the framers of the [[Constitution]] do?  They insisted that all notes and viewpoints be destroyed at the end of the [[constitution]]al convention.  They did not want any “legislative history” to influence the interpretation of the [[Constitution]] itself.  Only [[James Madison]] preserved his notes, which were not published until many decades later.

What did the framers of the Constitution do?  They insisted that all notes and viewpoints be destroyed at the end of the constitutional convention.  They did not want any “legislative history” to influence the interpretation of the Constitution itself.  Only James Madison preserved his notes, which were not published until many decades later.

Several on the [[Supreme Court]], such as Justice Scalia, feel that legislative history should have no influence in interpreting a statute.  The text of the statute alone should define its meaning.  What do you think?

Several on the Supreme Court, such as Justice Scalia, feel that legislative history should have no influence in interpreting a statute.  The text of the statute alone should define its meaning.  What do you think?

'''V.  Congressional Powers'''

'''V.  Congressional Powers'''