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 [[politician]]s!

We’ve had two lectures and two homework [[assignment]]s 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 [[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.

Why do people know so little about the [[Constitution]]?  Because there are [[politics|political]] [[reason]]s 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 spend 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 spend 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-[[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.

Knowing the [[Constitution]] helps non-[[lawyer]]s also.  Almost everything today implicates [[constitution]]al [[issue]]s.  What are your [[rights]] if you’re told you cannot chop down a [[tree]] on your [[property]]?  Or if you are in a [[automobile|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 [[year]]s, producing the most [[productivity|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 [[reason]]s 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]] [[spiritual|spirit]] that pervaded the [[colony|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 [[noble|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.

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 offense 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 [[trial|tried]] and [[conviction|convicted]] in [[church]] (ecclesiastical) [[court]]s, which the [[King]] said prevented them from being retried in his own [[court]]s.  The [[murder]]ers were [[knight]]s 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 [[America]]n form.

But last year, [[English]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]] proposed allowing retrial of criminal [[defendant]]s 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 [[colony|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|double jeopardy clause]] when it ratified the [[Constitution]] and called for another [[constitution]]al 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 [[punishment|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 [[Founding  Fathers|Founders]] preferred [[William Blackstone|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.  [[William Blackstone|Blackstone’s]] [[language]] forbids a second [[trial]] regardless of the outcome of the first.  Protection against [[Double Jeopardy|double jeopardy]] guards against multiple punitive ordeals, not just successive [[punishment]]s.

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 independently.

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 [[rights|right]] of the people to keep and bear [[firearm|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 [[rights|right]] to bear [[firearm|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 [[firearm|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 [[congressman|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.

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

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 [[statement]]s by [[congressman|congressmen]] in connection with passage of a [[bill]] are known as its “[[legislative]] [[history]].”  For most of our [[history]], it was popular for [[court]]s to rely heavily on [[legislative]] [[history]] in interpreting a [[statute]].  To combat this, Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and the first [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush]] began attaching their own interpretations of [[statute]]s 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 [[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.

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 [[Antonin Scalia|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. [[Congress]]ional [[Power]]s==

Now we turn to [[Congress]], beginning with the [[power]]s that the [[Constitution]] gives it.

Now we turn to [[Congress]], beginning with the [[power]]s that the [[Constitution]] gives it.

[[Tax]]ing [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can [[tax]] either to raise revenue or to regulate an activity.  Some [[tax]]es are designed to discourage sales, such as taxes on [[gasoline]] and [[cigarette]]s.  Neither [[Congress]] nor the [[state]]s can [[tax]] exports.

[[Tax]]ing [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can [[tax]] either to raise [[revenue]] or to [[regulation|regulate]] an activity.  Some [[tax]]es are designed to discourage sales, such as [[tax]]es on [[gasoline]] and [[cigarette]]s.  Neither [[Congress]] nor the [[state]]s can [[tax]] [[exports]].

Spending [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can spend money on any public purpose.  Virtually any spending can be considered “for the common defense and general welfare.”  However, [[Congress]] may not regulate the general welfare independent of spending.

Spending [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can spend [[money]] on any public purpose.  Virtually any spending can be considered “for the common defense and general [[welfare]].”  However, [[Congress]] may not regulate the general [[welfare]] independent of spending.

[[Commerce]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] to regulate all interstate and foreign [[commerce]].  [[Congress]] may regulate any activity that has an effect on interstate [[commerce]].

[[Commerce]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] to regulate all [[interstate]] and foreign [[commerce]].  [[Congress]] may regulate any activity that has an effect on [[interstate]] [[commerce]].

[[War]] [[Power]]s: [[Congress]] alone declares [[war]] and establishes and supports the [[military]].  [[Congress]] may also make rules for [[military]] courts, over which [[federal]] courts have no general authority.  Congress can impose economic regulations (e.g., controls on wages and prices of goods) during wartime.

[[War]] [[Power]]s: [[Congress]] alone declares [[war]] and establishes and supports the [[military]].  [[Congress]] may also make rules for [[military]] [[court]]s, over which [[federal]] [[court]]s have no general authority.  [[Congress]] can impose economic [[regulation]]s (e.g., controls on [[wage]]s and [[price]]s of [[goods]]) during [[war]]time.

Property [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] over all [[federal]] lands and property, of which there is a great deal.  [[Congress]] also runs the [[District of Columbia]], which is not in any state.

Property [[Power]]: [[Congress]] has exclusive [[power]] over all [[federal]] [[land]]s and [[property]], of which there is a great deal.  [[Congress]] also runs the [[District of Columbia]], which is not in any [[state]].

Intellectual Property [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the laws for [[patent]]s, [[copyright]]s and [[trademark]]s, which are called “[[intellectual property]]” because they are abstract products of intelligence rather than physical property.

[[Intellectual property|Intellectual Property]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the [[law]]s for [[patent]]s, [[copyright]]s and [[trademark]]s, which are called “[[intellectual property|Intellectual Property]]” because they are abstract products of [[intelligence]] rather than physical [[property]].

Bankruptcy [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes uniform [[bankrupt]]cy laws for the [[nation]].

[[Bankruptcy]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes uniform [[bankrupt]]cy laws for the [[nation]].

Postal [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes and runs the [[U.S. Post Office]].  No competition is allowed unless [[Congress]] agrees to it (as it did for expensive overnight services like [[Federal Express]])

Postal [[Power]]: [[Congress]] establishes and runs the [[United States Postal Service|U.S. Post Office]].  No competition is allowed unless [[Congress]] agrees to it (as it did for expensive overnight services like [[Federal Express]])

Money [[Power]]: [[Congress]] coins [[money]] and also sets standards for [[weight]]s and measures.

[[Money]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] coins [[money]] and also sets standards for [[weight]]s and [[measure]]s.

[[Citizen]]ship [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can exclude [[alien]]s and determine the procedures for people to become [[citizen]]s.

[[Citizen]]ship [[Power]]: [[Congress]] can exclude [[alien]]s and determine the procedures for people to become [[citizen]]s.

Admiralty [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the [[law]]s for the [[sea]]s.

[[Admiralty]] [[Power]]: [[Congress]] sets the [[law]]s for the [[sea]]s.

What’s left?  [[Congress]] can also expand its authority under these [[power]]s with the “[[Necessary and Proper Clause]],” also known as the “[[Elastic Clause]].”  [[Congress]] can make any law that is proper for executing any [[power]] granted to any part of [[government]], not just [[Congress]].  But there must be an underlying, specific grant of [[power]] in addition to the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].  For example, [[Congress]] could not pass laws establishing local police departments because there is no grant of [[power]] to the [[federal]] [[government]] in that area.

What’s left?  [[Congress]] can also expand its authority under these [[power]]s with the “[[Necessary and Proper Clause]],” also known as the “[[elasticity|Elastic]] Clause.”  [[Congress]] can make any [[law]] that is proper for executing any [[power]] granted to any part of [[government]], not just [[Congress]].  But there must be an underlying, specific grant of [[power]] in addition to the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].  For example, [[Congress]] could not pass [[law]]s establishing local [[police]] departments because there is no grant of [[power]] to the [[federal]] [[government]] in that area.

==VI.  How Laws are Made==

==VI.  How [[Law]]s are Made==

The basic process for passing [[federal]] [[law]] is as follows: A committee in the [[House of Representatives]] drafts a new statute.  If the committee approves the [[bill]], then it is sent to the [[House Rules Committee]], which will dictate the rules for debate and amendment by the full House prior to a vote.  If it ultimately passes the full House, it then proceeds to a committee in the [[Senate]], which may revise it before approving or rejecting it.  If the [[Senate]] committee approves it, perhaps in revised form, then it goes to the full [[Senate]] for passage.  [[Amendment]]s may be proposed by any [[senator]], and any [[senator]] may try to block by a [[vote]] by arguing indefinitely (this is known as a [[filibuster]]).  In the [[Senate]], 60 votes are necessary to end a [[filibuster]] and force a final vote.   

The basic process for passing [[federal]] [[law]] is as follows: A [[committee]] in the [[House of Representatives]] drafts a new [[statute]].  If the [[committee]] approves the [[bill]], then it is sent to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] Rules [[Committee]], which will dictate the rules for debate and [[amendment]] by the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]] prior to a [[vote]].  If it ultimately passes the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]], it then proceeds to a [[committee]] in the [[Senate]], which may revise it before approving or rejecting it.  If the [[Senate]] [[committee]] approves it, perhaps in revised form, then it goes to the full [[Senate]] for passage.  [[Amendment]]s may be proposed by any [[senator]], and any [[senator]] may try to block by a [[vote]] by arguing indefinitely (this is known as a [[filibuster]]).  In the [[Senate]], 60 [[vote]]s are necessary to end a [[filibuster]] and force a final [[vote]].   

If it passes the [[Senate]], then it is compared to the House version.  If they were identical, then it proceeds directly to the [[president]] for approval or rejection.  But if the House and [[Senate]] versions are different, then it must go to a specially appointed joint committee representing both chambers. They attempt to resolve the differences and present an identical version for new approval by the House and [[Senate]].  If the revised version is approved by both the House and [[Senate]], it then goes to the [[president]].

If it passes the [[Senate]], then it is compared to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] version.  If they were identical, then it proceeds directly to the [[president]] for approval or rejection.  But if the House and [[Senate]] versions are different, then it must go to a specially appointed [[Joint Committee|joint committee]] representing both [[chambers]]. They attempt to resolve the differences and present an identical version for new approval by the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]].  If the revised version is approved by both the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]], it then goes to the [[president]].

If the [[president]] signs the [[bill]] in ten (10) days (excluding [[Sunday]]s), or fails to return it without a signature and [[Congress]] is in session, then it becomes law.  If the president [[veto]]es the [[bill]], or fails to return it in ten (10) days (excluding [[Sunday]]s) and [[Congress]] is no longer in session (the “[[pocket veto]]”), then it does not become law.  (A famous example of the pocket veto was President [[Lincoln]]’s refusal to sign his own Party’s Wade-Davis Bill in 1864, which would have imposed harsh penalties on [[Confederate]] officials.)  [[Congress]] may attempt to override any type of [[veto]], but it needs 2/3 approval in both the House and [[Senate]] to do so.  See Article I, Section 7, clause 2 (p. 320).

If the [[president]] signs the [[bill]] in ten (10) days (excluding [[Sunday]]s), or fails to return it without a signature and [[Congress]] is in session, then it becomes [[law]].  If the [[president]] [[veto]]es the [[bill]], or fails to return it in ten (10) [[day]]s (excluding [[Sunday]]s) and [[Congress]] is no longer in session (the “[[pocket veto]]”), then it does not become [[law]].  (A famous example of the [[pocket]] [[veto]] was [[President]] [[Lincoln]]’s refusal to sign his own [[political parties|Party]]’s Wade-Davis [[Bill]] in 1864, which would have imposed harsh penalties on [[Confederate]] officials.)  [[Congress]] may attempt to override any type of [[veto]], but it needs 2/3 approval in both the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] and [[Senate]] to do so.  See [[Article I]], Section 7, clause 2 (p. 320).

Overrides of [[veto]]es were very rare prior to President [[Andrew Johnson]].  Only three presidents have been overridden ten or more times: Presidents [[Andrew Johnson]], [[Harry Truman]] and [[Gerald Ford]].  The reason is simple: each faced a [[Congress]] that was dominated by the opposing political party.  [[Republican]] President [[Reagan]] vetoed 78 bills of [[Congress]], but was only overridden nine times.  That is remarkable given his principled positions and the overwhelming [[Democrat]]ic control of the [[House of Representatives]] during his presidency.

Overrides of [[veto]]es were very rare prior to [[President]] [[Andrew Johnson]].  Only three [[president]]s have been overridden ten or more times: [[President]]s [[Andrew Johnson]], [[Harry Truman]] and [[Gerald Ford]].  The reason is simple: each faced a [[Congress]] that was dominated by the opposing political party.  [[Republican]] President [[Reagan]] [[veto]]ed 78 [[bill]]s of [[Congress]], but was only overridden nine times.  That is remarkable given his principled positions and the overwhelming [[Democrat]]ic control of the [[House of Representatives]] during his presidency.

The [[Republican]]-controlled House voted to override President [[Clinton]]’s [[veto]] of the ban on [[partial-birth abortion]], but the [[Senate]] lacked the 2/3rd majority required.  It was not until [[President Bush]] was elected in 2000 and the [[Republican]]s captured the [[Senate]] in 2002 that now it appears this [[bill]] will be enacted into law.  With Bush agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in [[Congress]] to enact it.

The [[Republican]]-controlled [[House_of_Representatives|House]] voted to override President [[Clinton]]’s [[veto]] of the ban on [[partial-birth abortion]], but the [[Senate]] lacked the 2/3rd majority required.  It was not until [[President Bush]] was [[elected in 2000 and the [[Republican]]s captured the [[Senate]] in 2002 that now it appears this [[bill]] will be enacted into [[law]].  With [[George W. Bush|Bush]] agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in [[Congress]] to enact it.

==VII.  Elections – The Three-Way Race.==

==VII.  Elections – The Three-Way Race.==

[[State]]s determine the procedures for electing their [[congress]]men.  Some use “run-offs”, some do not.

[[State]]s determine the procedures for [[election|electing]] their [[congress]]men.  Some use “run-offs”, some do not.

A “[[run-off]]” consists of a special election between the two top vote-getters, when no one attains 50% on Election Day.  For example, if John Smith received 48% and Mary Doe procured 47%, and minor party candidates totaled 5%, then a run-off would feature an election between only John Smith and Mary Doe a few weeks later.  That ensures the winner attains at least 50%.

A “run-off” consists of a special [[election]] between the two top [[vote]]-getters, when no one attains 50% on [[election]] [[Day]].  For example, if John Smith received 48% and Mary Doe procured 47%, and minor party [[candidate]]s totaled 5%, then a run-off would feature an [[election]] between only John Smith and Mary Doe a few [[week]]s later.  That ensures the winner attains at least 50%.

States that do not utilize “run-off” elections would simply declare John Smith the winner on Election Day, despite failure to receive 50% of the vote.

[[State]]s that do not utilize “run-off” [[election]]s would simply declare John Smith the winner on [[election]] Day, despite failure to receive 50% of the [[vote]].

In our [[president]]ial elections, do we utilize a “run-off”?  (No.)  Do we have something similar?  (Yes, the [[Electoral College]] requires that the [[House of Representatives]] picks the [[president]] if no one obtains a majority of electoral votes.)

In our [[president]]ial [[election]]s, do we utilize a “run-off”?  (No.)  Do we have something similar?  (Yes, the [[Electoral College]] requires that the [[House of Representatives]] picks the [[president]] if no one obtains a [[majority]] of electoral votes.)

When there is no run-off, occasionally (but very rarely) a candidate can win because his opponents split their vote.  This happens less often than the [[media]] pretends.  Can you think of reasons why it is rare for someone to win because his opponents split their vote?

When there is no run-off, occasionally (but very rarely) a [[candidate]] can win because his opponents split their [[vote]].  This happens less often than the [[media]] pretends.  Can you think of reasons why it is rare for someone to win because his opponents split their [[vote]]?

I can think of two examples of presidents who won with less than 50% of the vote, because their opponents split their vote.  Can you?  ([[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912; [[George W. Bush]], 2000)

I can think of two examples of [[president]]s who won with less than 50% of the [[vote]], because their opponents split their [[vote]].  Can you?  ([[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912; [[George W. Bush]], 2000)

A senator who won due to vote splitting was [[conservative]] [[James Buckley]] in New York in 1970.  But victories due to vote-splitting is quite rare.

A [[senator]] who won due to [[vote]] splitting was [[conservative]] [[James Buckley]] in [[New York]] in 1970.  But victories due to [[vote]]-splitting is quite rare.

==VIII. Issues==

==VIII. [[Issue]]s==

1. The controversy arose when the [[federal]] [[government]] established a “do not call list” and prohibit companies from calling numbers on the list.  [[Congress]], [[Senate]], the [[President]], and apparently a majority of the public felt strongly that this is desirable and [[constitution]]al.  Many people are tired of being interrupted during dinner by a [[telemarketer]] calling to solicit business.  What do you think?  What about free speech and free enterprise?

1. The controversy arose when the [[federal]] [[government]] established a “do not call list” and prohibit [[company|companies]] from calling numbers on the list.  [[Congress]], [[Senate]], the [[President]], and apparently a [[majority]] of the public felt strongly that this is desirable and [[constitution]]al.  Many people are tired of being interrupted during dinner by a [[telemarketer]] calling to solicit [[business]].  What do you think?  What about free [[speech]] and [[Free Enterprise|free enterprise]]?

2. A similar issue arose with respect to door-to-door salesmen.  Some towns, to monitor these salesmen, require them to register.  A religious group objected to the registration requirement.  Your view?

2. A similar [[issue]] arose with respect to door-to-door salesmen.  Some [[towns]], to monitor these salesmen, require them to register.  A [[religious]] group objected to the registration requirement.  Your view?

3. Currently there is no law protecting the builders of unoriginal databases, like listings of names in a phone book, against unauthorized copying.  You could copy someone else’s phone book and sell the listing for your own profit.  Is that fair?  [[Congress]] is proposing a law to prevent the copying of someone else’s database.  What [[clause]] might give [[Congress]] this [[power]]?  Would you support such a [[bill]]?

3. Currently there is no [[law]] protecting the builders of unoriginal databases, like listings of names in a [[telephone|phone]] book, against unauthorized copying.  You could copy someone else’s [[telephone|phone]] [[book]] and sell the listing for your own [[profit]].  Is that fair?  [[Congress]] is proposing a [[law]] to prevent the copying of someone else’s database.  What [[clause]] might give [[Congress]] this [[power]]?  Would you support such a [[bill]]?

[[category:Homeschool Curriculum]]

[[category:Homeschool Curriculum]]