by Joseph Gonzalez

Constitutional Dynamism

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-25 21:31:49 UTC

On this side of the board I will examine how the Constitution has created a dynamic government that has the ability change with the times.

Limited Government: 22nd Amendment

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-25 21:46:59 UTC

The 22nd Amendment of the United States does not allow a President to serve more than two terms in office. Before 1951, a president could be reelected any number of times if he has the support to do so. Presidents such as Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt all attempted to serve third terms but weren't successful. The only President that was able to successfully serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He served three full terms as President and was even elected to a fourth term. Although he died three months into his last term and did not get to serve a full fourth term. After this people were afraid that a President would become a dictator. Congress passed the 22nd amendment in 1947 and was ratified in 1951. This amendment kept our government dynamic by not allowing the president to become a dictator and have too much power.

Popular Sovereignty: The 17th Amendment

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-25 21:53:21 UTC

The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. It changed the way that State Senators were elected by allowing the people to elect them directly. Originally under Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, state senators were elected by each state's legislature. Giving the people the right to elect them gives people more control on who represents their state in the Senate. This relates to popular sovereignty because it allows our representatives in Congress to be elected directly by the people. The amendment kept our government dynamic by opening up more opportunities for people to vote for their government officials.

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: US v. Alvarez & Stolen Valor Acts of 2005/2011

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-26 00:05:58 UTC

The case United States v. Xavier Alvarez, decided in 2012, involved the infringement of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Xavier Alvarez told a board of directors in 2007 that he was a retired marine of 25 years and he received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987. Having not done either of those, he was charged in 2007 with two accounts of false representation. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 makes it illegal to falsely claim military medals or decorations.

Alvarez claims that it is his first amendment right to be able to say what he wants. He appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals and had the lower court's decision reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional because it infringed on your first amendment right to freedom of speech. A month after this, the President and the Pentagon worked together to create a database. It contains medal citations over time to verify military honors. Then in 2011, Congress revised the old act and came up with the Stolen Valor Act of 2011. It says that no one can profit from fake military service. It is illegal to receive health care benefits, government contracts, or jobs for veterans if you have not served. This way people cannot profit from military benefits having no military service. This case shows our government is dynamic because each branch of the federal government used its powers to work together and take action on a problem and solve it. The Judicial branch ruled a law unconstitutional, The Executive Branch enforced improved enforcement, and the Legislative Branch created a new law to fix the old one.

Federalism: Furman v. Georgia

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-27 02:05:55 UTC

In the case of Furman v. Georgia, decided in 1972, William Furman broke into a home and tried robbing it. As he was taking things from the house, the owner came down stairs to confront the man. The burglar attempted to flee the house but dropped his gun on his way out. The gun discharged and shot the innocent home owner. Furman was found and charged with murder. Since the murder took place during the commitment of a felony, Furman was eligible for the death penalty. At this time, the death penalty was allowed in Georgia. He was sentenced to the death penalty but Furman appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court over ruled the state's decision saying that it's considered "cruel and unusual punishment". Furman also stated that it is his 14th Amendment right to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness", which he would not be able to do if he was killed. Furman was ruled guilty but still ended up receiving 20 years in jail. This represents the dynamism of the Constitution because the Supreme Court kept a state from making an unlawful decision by overturning it.

Constitutional Stability

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-27 02:09:03 UTC

On this side of the board I will examine how the Constitution has created a government that remains stable by preventing changes from occurring too quickly.

Popular Sovereignty: Ludlow Amendment

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-28 13:51:37 UTC

The Ludlow Amendment was proposed in 1938 by Louis Ludlow (D-Indiana). It consisted of a national referendum in which the people got to choose if our country declares war. He felt that the people who had to go and fight the war should decide, rather than Congress. This was proposed during a time after the first World War and the Great Depression. Plus there was also war beginning to rumble in other parts of the world. The United States wanted to stay isolated from the conflicts that were beginning to arise. When the amendment was proposed to Congress, it was not voted for by at least two thirds. This kept the government stable because it kept the people from taking one of their powers away. If it would've passed it could've possibly changed the outcome of World War II, which the US got involved in a couple years later. This is because Congress makes decisions on war and not the people.

Limited Government: Anti-Miscegenation Amendment

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-28 14:17:44 UTC

In 1871, 1912, and 1913, an amendment was proposed to Congress that bans all interracial marriage or interaction such as sex. Many states in the south such as Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Maryland had laws against interracial marriage in their states. The laws mostly affected the marriage between Whites and African Americans, even Native Americans and Asians. It was proposed to Congress three times. Although it could not get approved by at least two thirds. Congress finally ruled in 1967, after a Supreme Court case named Loving v. Virginia, that it is unconstitutional to not allow people of different races to not be married. This is good because today almost 1 in 10 couples in the U.S. are a mixed couple. This shows that our government can remain stable because we can stop unconstitutional laws or actions to be taken.

Federalism: McCulloch v. Maryland

s_joseph_gonzalez — 2015-10-29 01:33:28 UTC

The case of McCulloch v. Maryland, decided in 1819, composes of the state of Maryland trying to impose a tax on a federal bank. Previously following the War of 1812 and the fail of the First National Bank, Congress opened up the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Its job was to control unregulated money being produced in state banks. Although Maryland and many other states did not agree with this. Maryland tried testing the government by taxing any bank that was not chartered by the state. The U.S. bank branch in Baltimore refused to pay these taxes, so Maryland brought them to court to collect their money. The court ruled that the chartering of a bank is a power that can only be used on a federal level. Since a state cannot ignore a federal law, the tax was ruled unconstitutional and they did not have to pay the state. This represents stability in our government because a state can not tell the federal government what to do. According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. In article six, clause two of the Constitution it states that it is "the law of the land" and that it comes first over state and local laws. Since the federal law in this case was to have a Second United States Bank regulate currency in each state, the state cannot tax that bank because they do not have the power to impede a federal law.