(Note: these learning modules encompass the
actual class lectures, and are designed for those students who have to miss
class through no fault of their own, and also as a refresher for all students.
Bold print in the notes are what the professor writes on the board.)
In
order to prevent a one-person dictatorship, in democracies the three powers of
government are typically divided between three different institutions.
Those 3 powers are:
1) Legislative-
making the laws
2) Executive-
enforcing the laws, interpreting the laws
3) Judicial-
final interpretation of the laws, assessing penalties for their violation
With
all 13 original American colonies coming from Great Britain, the
British form of government is an important model for the American one. Even in
the late 1700s, Britain separated these powers. A bicameral (two chambers)
Parliament that made the laws consisted of an upper chamber, a House of Lords,
consisting of hereditary landowning nobles, and a lower chamber, House of
Commons, elected by those who owned property or had wealth. The hereditary King
and the Prime Minister (chosen from the House of Commons) were the executive
authority. And, Britain has a court system.
Each of
the 13 American colonies had their own colonial governments.
However, the executive power was a colonial governor appointed by the British
King and coming from Britain, and the upper chamber was a Governor’s Council
appointed by the governor from among the leading colonial families (those who
were wealthy, well educated, and having important occupations). The lower
chamber of the colonial legislatures was elected by the American colonists, so
Americans had confidence only in that body. When the British Parliament raised
taxes on the American colonists, or when the colonial governors sought to raise
taxes, the American colonies revolted against Great Britain and sought
independence.
The Declaration of
Independence
The Declaration
of Independence has 4 important concepts, drawn from an English philosopher, John
Locke. They are:
1) Every
American has natural rights given them by God. Those
rights are life, liberty, protection of their private property,
and freedom to pursue happiness.
2) Limited
government. There should be no all-powerful King, who claims that he has
been appointed by God to rule however he wishes. No government should be able
to take the people’s natural rights.
3) Consent
of the governed. Our government can exist only by
the consent of the governed- the people. Thus, we have elections whereby voters
can choose their elected officials. At the minimum, voters must be able to vote
for officials, who then select other officials, which is still consent of the
governed, but it is a more indirect democracy.
4) The right
of revolt. When any government becomes destructive of the people’s natural
rights, they have the right to revolt against it. In this particular case, the
right to become an independent nation.
Class
discussion. Do you think that our current government is so unresponsive and so
tyrannical that we should revolt against it? We saw national protests against
restrictive shelter-in-place Covid orders, and against the police killings of
African Americans. Some activists say that the police should be de-funded. Some
immigrant rights activists say that ICE (immigration enforcement) should
be de-funded. Some liberal states constantly sue President Trump over his
executive orders, such as in his being tough on illegal immigration. Many
conservative states sued the Biden
administration over their lenient immigration enforcement policies or their
tough rules on the oil and gas industry. Indeed, we even saw an insurrection by
extreme Trump supporters on January 6, 2020 who sought to prevent Biden from
being declared President! Should states in the more liberal Northeast and
Pacific Coast perhaps seek to secede from the nation? Or, should Americans seek
more peaceful, orderly change?
The
American colonies won their War of Independence, so initially we just had 13
independent nations or states. Americans then came up with a weak form of a
central government called the Articles of Confederation. Each state
was jealous of its own power and independence, and Americans thought of
themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers, and not as Americans. How was this
Confederate government weak and unworkable?
1) It had
a unicameral legislature, only one chamber in their Congress, and each state
regardless of population had one vote. It was kind of like the United Nations
General Assembly, where every nation has one vote.
2) There
was no independent, energetic executive. A council of states drawn from this
Congress exercised the executive power.
3) There
was no national court system. So if Congress passed a law, how could it be
enforced? The Confederate government had to ask the states and their state
courts to enforce it. The states could say, we don’t agree with that law, and we
won’t enforce it.
4) Congress
could make appropriations, but they could not require taxes be raised. They
could only “ask” the states to raise taxes for them. Good luck! It was like
asking NATO countries and UN countries to pay their fair share to keep the
organizations going.
5) Congress
could declare war, but it could not compel anyone to serve in the military.
They could only ask the states for troops. Again, good luck! The Vietnam War
waged against the communist North Vietnamese was an unpopular war in more
liberal states like Massachusetts, so why would such a state provide troops to
fight in it. We had a federal draft then and in previous wars.
6) The
Confederate government could not regulate trade between the states, or between
the nation and other nations.
7) Any
amendments (changes) in this Confederate constitution required unanimity- all
13 states had to agree to the change. Therefore, no changes were made.
After Shays’
Rebellion, a revolt by debtor farmers against the banks that were
foreclosing against their farms, most Americans realized that we needed a
stronger form of central government. Banks and merchants were scared that the
economic system would collapse, and that their loans would never be repaid. So
the Confederate Congress called for a national convention to be held to
consider changing the Articles of Confederation. This convention decided to
throw out this unworkable government entirely, and write up a new constitution.
This convention was the Philadelphia constitutional convention. The
delegates were a higher socioeconomic status elite (who were well educated, had
high incomes, and with prestigious occupations), who also were very politically
knowledgeable about forms of government across the world and throughout
history. They were also all white men, a controversial topic today.
So, there
were big challenges. How are you going to get 13 virtually independent states
to agree to give up much of their power? Some of these are large states with
large populations. Others are small states with little population. Large states
of course wanted a unicameral (one chamber) legislature with the numbers of
delegates from each state apportioned based on each state’s population. Small
states protested, and said that they would have no power in such a system-
their numbers would be completely overwhelmed by the large states. They wanted
to retain the old, each state has one vote, system. It looked like we wouldn’t
even be able to have one federal government, and we would just keep 13 separate
nations. But then, the delegates came up with The Great Compromise.
There would be a bicameral Congress: the upper chamber, the Senate,
would have state equality, as every state would have two
Senators; the lower chamber, the House of Representatives,
would be apportioned based on each state’s population. Therefore
today, a big state like California has 53 U.S. Representatives, while
Mississippi has only 4. However, both states have 2 U.S. Senators each. Today,
some people, especially liberals, say that this is Undemocratic! They argue, Why
even have a Senate, aren’t we one nation, one people? It goes back to our
nation’s founding. But it also goes back to the diversity of our nation, which
still exists. Do we in Mississippi want to have our lives dominated by the
culture of California? Hey, maybe we’d still be locked up for our own good! (By
the way, I met a whole family from California during the Covid lockdown, using
the exercise equipment on that hill by the lake outside the Sanderson Center.
They had fled the state, and when they said they had moved to Mississippi, I
responded, “Good choice.” Their answer: “We love it here!” Freedom!!)
Much
more controversial was the other major compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise.
How should slaves (non-free people) count in terms of direct taxation on each
state, and in terms of apportionment of the House based on population? Ruling
whites in both regions were hypocritical and self-interested. Southerners
claimed slaves were property, but they didn’t want to pay taxes to the federal
government on their economic value; instead, Southerners wanted slaves to count
as people, to increase their power in the House. Northerners were similarly
inconsistent, wanting to tax states for their wealth which would include the
economic value of slaves, but not wanting to count slaves as people in
determining the size of House delegations (the North didn’t want to increase
the political power of the South). The 3/5 compromise was that
slaves would count for both purposes- for both taxation and House
representation. But to reduce the tax burden and reduce the political power
granted the South, each slave would count as only three-fifths of a free
person. Some whites argued that the labor of a slave was worth only
three-fifths of a free person. So, the very founding of our nation was based on
this racist, slave owning mentality. No wonder even today there are some bitter
racial divisions in our nation. What do you think? Should the Founders have
refused to make such an “immoral” political deal? Should our constitution have
prohibited the institution of slavery? One student points out that if they had,
the Southern states would not have ratified the new constitution. So then, you
would have had two, or more nations. So instead, we kicked the can down the
road, so to speak, and in the 1860s had a bloody Civil War that cost more
American lives than any other war in our history. So, where do we go from here,
given the recent national debate over racial injustice and DEI policies??
I’m
running out of time, as this is a long lecture. In short, there were two other
compromises. Congress could not pass an export tax, so there would not be
federal interference in the South marketing its crops abroad. Instead, we
historically have had all sorts of tariffs and embargo threats, so what does
this clause matter? The other compromise was that Congress could not regulate
or prohibit the trade in slaves until 20 years had passed. After 20 years,
Congress did prohibit the slave trade, but many southerners ignored this
federal law. Don’t worry about these two compromises for the test.
Finally,
we come to an important topic that you should really know for any test. It
is Checks and Balances! Well, we just revolted against a tyrannical
King, we don’t want another dictatorship. How can we prevent it? We’ll have the
three powers of government divided into three different branches of government.
We proposed a President exercising the executive power, a bicameral Congress
exercising the legislative power, and a Supreme Court exercising the judicial
power. So why not make sure that none of these separate institutions can
operate solely by itself? Why not ensure that each branch of government can
check the power of the other branches of government? Indeed, why not divide the
Congress’ power itself? So, remember the following 7 ways that each branch of
the federal government can check the powers of other branches:
1) Congress actually checks its own
power! The House and the Senate keep watch over each other, and check each
other’s power. That is, any bill must pass both chambers in identical
form, before the bill can be sent to the President. So if the House wants
to help out the larger states with mass transit funding, and the Senate says
don’t forget about the more rural states that need highway support, guess what?
Members from both chambers get together, take the two different bills coming
out of each chamber, and engage in compromise. They end up with something in
the middle of the two chambers, typically (maybe funding for both mass transit
and highways). The requirement that a bill pass both chambers in identical form
also prevents cases where one party or ideology may impose its will on the
other. President Biden and the Democratic controlled House of Representatives
would have liked to force states to make it easier to vote, and would have
liked to prevent states from outlawing abortion, but the evenly divided Senate
refused to pass such bills that would have infringed on the rights of the
states.
2) But what if both chambers of Congress
get taken over by the same political party, and they decide to abuse voters of
the other party. Well, then you have the Presidential Veto. The
President can veto that bill, and Congress needs a much larger majority to pass
it over his veto. In the 1994 elections Republicans gained control of both
Congressional chambers and they proceeded to cut spending for important federal
domestic spending programs; Democratic President Bill Clinton vetoed those
appropriations bills that had those cuts. His vetoes were not overridden
(sometimes Congress did not even try to override them).
3) But what if a President gets drunk
with power? He vetoes bills that would reduce his abuse of powers, or he vetoes
bills that would help many Americans? Then, Congress can vote to override
his veto, which takes a separate two-thirds vote in each
chamber with each chamber voting separately. Presidents
Johnson a Democrat and Nixon a Republican aggressively prosecuted the Vietnam
War, and even bombed neighboring nations and invaded them. The
Democratic-controlled Congress finally passed a War Powers Act requiring that
Presidents get the permission of Congress to commit troops to hostilities
abroad. President Nixon vetoed it, arguing that it interfered with his
constitution rights of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and his
right to protect the American people. Congress argued that under the
constitution, it has the power to declare war. The Senate voted to override his
veto and did so easily; the House also voted to override his veto, but it was a
closer vote (284-135). Therefore, this War Powers Act is a federal law passed
over the President’s veto.
4) But what do you do if the President
is so drunk with power, so tyrannical, that you think it would be best if he
were completely removed from office? The constitution gives Congress the power
of impeachment. Congress can impeach and remove the President from
office, and disqualify him from ever holding any federal office. The
constitutional grounds that must be met are committing “Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and misdemeanors.” It is a two-stage process. The House of
Representatives must impeach (accuse) by a majority vote (or more, of course).
The Senate must convict by a two-thirds vote.
Four presidents have undergone this
process: Andrew Johnson (a Tennessee Democrat) was accused of undermining
Congressional Reconstruction acts and violating the Tenure of Office Act, and
was impeached by the House, but the Senate failed by one vote to remove him
from office; Richard Nixon was accused of abuse of power and obstruction of
justice, and the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend his impeachment
to the full House, but he resigned before a vote of the entire House of
Representatives was held (his allies told him that he had lost the support of
the Senate); Bill Clinton was accused of perjury (lying under oath in a federal
criminal probe and in a civil sexual harassment lawsuit), he was impeached by
the House, but he was acquitted by the Senate; Trump in his first term was
impeached by the Democratic-controlled House twice, but then acquitted by the
Senate. More on his case later. Cabinet officials are also subject to the
impeachment process; a Secretary of War under President Grant and the Homeland
Security Secretary under Biden were impeached for receiving kickbacks and
immigration enforcement laxity respectively, but both were acquitted (the
Senate didn’t even consider the party-line vote in the Biden case).
5) The Supreme Court is
an important body also. It has the power to declare federal and state laws unconstitutional,
and therefore null and void. An example was in 2013, when they struck down the
federal Defense of Marriage Act, an Act passed after some states began
legalizing same-sex marriages. This federal act barred federal benefits (such
as the federal inheritance tax law) for same sex marriages. The Court held that
only states could define what marriage was, and the federal government could
not treat marriages of same sex or opposite sex couples differently if a state
had legalized both (this would violate the 5th amendment clause
whereby the federal government could not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or
property without due process). Two years later, the Supreme Court applied the
14th amendment prohibition against states denying their
citizens due process and equal protection of the law to the states, and held
that states could not deny the “fundamental right of individual dignity and
autonomy” of marriage to same sex couples.
6) Indeed, the Supreme Court is
so important that it can declare Presidential actions unconstitutional.
President Nixon had made tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office for
historical purposes and to write his memoirs. After he was told in early 1972 (his
re-election year) that some of his campaign staffers had been arrested for
breaking into the national Democratic headquarters at the Watergate building
seeking campaign secrets, he told his staff members that the burglars should
“cover up, plead the 5th”, that his staff should pay hush money
(humanitarian aid to their families) to the burglars, and that the CIA (Central
Intelligence Agency) head should tell the head of the FBI to cease its
investigation of the burglars for national security reasons (some burglars were
former CIA employees). Indeed, the CIA head did tell the FBI head to cease its
investigation, they did for three days, and then thought better and reversed
themselves and continued the investigation. Even a 3-day delay is regarded as a
violation of the federal law against Obstruction of Justice. Going to trial,
the burglars subpoenaed the Nixon tapes to prove that they had presidential
authorization for their actions, and President Nixon claimed executive
privilege (the implied right of a President to refuse to disclose executive
branch information that would interfere with his Chief Executive powers under
the constitution). The Supreme Court by an 8-0 vote that included Nixon’s three
appointees declared Nixon’s actions unconstitutional. The Court held that a
broad claim of executive privilege must fall before the specific request for
information relevant to a criminal trial. Nixon released the tapes, and he
resigned. The Supreme Court more recently overruled Biden executive orders
attempting to repudiate many college student loan debts, as well as some of Trump’s
more aggressive immigration enforcement actions.
7) And so,
the Supreme Court is very powerful, but Congress can impeach and remove
Supreme Court judges (and other federal judges) for the impeachable
offenses of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and misdemeanors.” This is
the same process as for the President, as you need a majority vote of the
House, and a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Only one Supreme Court judge has
ever been impeached by the House, and that was in 1804 (Samuel Chase), and he
was acquitted easily by the Senate; Chase was a known Federalist Party member,
and the old Republican Party gained control of Congress with Jefferson’s
election as President in 1800. In the late 1960s many conservatives were angry
over the Earl Warren Supreme Court decisions that protected the constitutional
rights of criminal defendants from questionable state actions, and purchased
billboards reading “Impeach Earl Warren,” but it never happened. More recently,
when Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of attempted (or
actual) sexual assault as a high schooler, some Democrats threatened to impeach
him after he was confirmed by a narrow 50-48 vote (only one Democrat and one
Republican broke party lines). A few lower federal court judges
have been impeached and removed from office for misconduct. In 2010 judge G.
Thomas Porteous Jr. of the Eastern Louisiana federal district court was
impeached and removed from office for accepting bribes and for perjury.
A now,
a brief review of the various impeachment accusations against President Trump.
What can I say? Trump is a businessman, entertainer, and salesman. When
campaigning, he showed little knowledge of government; he was the ultimate
“outsider”. He became President in the 2016 election by winning the electoral
college, though he lost the popular vote (more on the electoral college later).
His campaign staffers had had one meeting with a Russian promising dirt on the
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, his incoming National Security Advisor
during the transition period had a conversation with the Russian ambassador to
the U.S. regarding foreign policy issues, and the Obama Justice Department
started an FBI investigation into possible Russian involvement in the 2016
presidential campaign. President Trump thought that under the federal
constitution he was the chief executive, so he fired the FBI chief (who reports
to the Attorney General), but the FBI and Justice Department have a long
tradition of independent actions and neutrality. So, the Justice Department
appointed an independent special counsel (Bob Mueller) to investigate possible
Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and possible obstruction of justice
by Trump of the FBI investigation. The Mueller Report found that no American
had wittingly been involved in the Russian interference in our election
(Russian operatives had waged a modest social media campaign supporting Trump
and seeking to divide our nation politically). The Report did provide evidence
that Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation, but everyone he
attempted to influence rejected his attempts; it is also possible that the
initial investigation into the Trump campaign may have been illegal, as federal
investigators made over a dozen errors in their application for permission for
their surveillance of Americans. So Congress decided not to pursue impeachment
charges against Trump for those reasons. But then President Trump in a phone
conversation with the new reform leader of Ukraine (an east European country
that used to be part of the Soviet Union) suggested that this foreign leader
investigate alleged corruption of Democrat Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who had been
hired as a lobbyist for a Ukrainian oil company while his father was Vice
President under Biden. Also, the Trump administration was slow in releasing
lethal military aid to Ukraine, a country that like Georgia was partially
occupied by Russian sympathizers and had even lost its Crimea part to Russia in
2014. The Trump administration did eventually release the military aid before
the end of the fiscal year, and did so without an explicit promise by the
Ukrainian government to investigate Biden’s son. Biden’s son had made hundreds
of thousands of dollars from his lobbyist work, even though he had no knowledge
of the oil business; at the time, his father was Vice President, and Obama
administration officials were concerned over the appearance of impropriety, but
they didn’t want to bother the Vice President because at the time his other son
was dying of brain cancer. The Democratic party-controlled House of
Representatives voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power regarding holding up
the Ukrainian military aid in return for help in his 2020 political campaign
(Biden was the likely Democratic nominee), and also impeached him for
obstructing a Congressional investigation by refusing to provide all requested
witnesses and documents. The Republican controlled Senate (at the time) voted
to acquit Trump with the only exception to the party line vote being Republican
Mitt Romney of Utah. Trump made history by being impeached a second time, for
“incitement of insurrection,” when he urged his supporters to protest at the
U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 during the counting of the electoral
votes, which resulted in a three-hour occupation of the Capitol by the
protesters (V.P. Pence ended up calling the Defense Department to end the
occupation). Weeks later, the Senate acquitted Trump, partly because he was no
longer in office. Senators wanting to convict him also wanted to use the
constitutional provision that permitted them to disqualify him from ever
holding any future federal office. Can you follow this? I’m not making this up!
It’s like a bad soap opera!! So what do you think? Should Trump have been
removed from office the first time? Should he have been permitted to run for
re-election after the second trial? The soap opera continued, as the Democratic-controlled
House appointed a special January 6 Commission chaired by our state's own
Congressman Bennie Thompson, which acted like a very capable prosecutor
presenting evidence to a grand jury that President Trump more likely than not
was guilty of two federal crimes (assisting and providing aid and comfort to an
insurrection). Former President Trump was then indicted for two federal and two
state crimes- falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to a
porn star (New York state law), attempting to subvert the election outcome in
Georgia (a Georgia state racketeering law), willfully retaining classified
documents (federal law), and false charges of fraud over the 2020 election
outcome and obstruction of the electoral college vote (federal).
Democratic-controlled states of Colorado, Maine, and Illinois attempted to keep
Trump off of the ballot in 2024, arguing that he had violated the post-Civil
War 14th amendment prohibiting anyone who had been in “insurrection
or rebellion” against the federal government from holding federal office, but
the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that states could not enforce this
amendment against Presidential candidates. After Trump won re-election to a
non-consecutive term in 2024, all of these cases were dropped.
Now we
move to another important subject that may be on the test, and that is
the Selection Methods whereby federal officials are selected.
There are four different institutions (since the House and Senate are
different), and you should also know for each of them how the process has
changed over the years. The Founding Fathers were kind of elitist, and
distrusted the average voter (many of whom were illiterate), so they set up an
indirect method of selecting many offices. They wanted to keep the most
important officials most isolated from the masses. As our country became better
educated, and as average citizens demanded more of a direct voice in their
government, a more direct democracy evolved for some institutions. Also, we
learned that the power of the President should be limited. Finally, make sure
that you know the terms of office (in years) for each institution. So, here we
go:
1) The House of Representatives is
closest to the people, as even originally it was elected by the people.
Also, it had the most frequent elections, every two years, as members had only
a 2-year term. So every two years, both presidential and
midterm years (halfway in a president’s term), all members of the House are up
for election. That hasn’t changed over the years. Such frequent elections make
House members very responsive to the desires of their constituencies. Most
states have more than one House member, so the state legislature must draw the
lines of the House districts, and according to a Supreme Court decision
districts should have equal populations.
2) The Senate is
a bit of a more elitist body, intended to be more insulated from the masses and
the public passions. It was initially more elitist like the House of Lords and
the Governor’s Councils. Senators were chosen for six-year terms with one-third
of them elected every two years. The beauty of such staggered 6-year
terms is that if a new House tried to move quickly in passing unwise
legislation reflecting the public’s current passion, the Senate could say no,
or hold up the legislation. Only one-third of them are up for election every
two years, so two-thirds of that body could be more courageous. Further
insulating the Senate from the people is that originally, the
constitution said that the state legislatures would pick the
U.S. Senators. The people had only an indirect effect on Senators- people voted
for their state legislators, and their state legislators selected the Senators.
That procedure did change over time. During the Progressive Era,
reformers got tired of U.S. Senators being captives of the important economic
interests of their states (which controlled many state legislatures), so they
demanded a constitutional amendment. The 17th amendment
adopted in 1913 required that states hold popular elections to
select U.S. Senators. (Up to that time, states decided how their Senators would
be selected, and only a few let the people vote for them.)
3) The President was
set up as an institution even more insulated from the people. The constitution
stipulates that the President will be selected by an electoral college (reflecting
the Great Compromise, each state has a number of presidential electors equal to
the number of its U.S. House and Senate members), and the state legislatures
will select the presidential electors. So, this provides a very indirect
influence of people- people elect the state legislatures, the state
legislatures pick the presidential electors, and the electors pick the
President. That system changed during the Jacksonian Democracy era of
1828-1860, as people demanded more of a direct democracy, and every state
passed state laws providing for a popular election to
determine their state’s electors (who were pledged to support particular
candidates). Today, states typically drop the actual names of the people who
are electors, and just list on their ballots the names and parties of the
presidential candidates. As such, when you vote for Trump or the Democrat, that
candidate’s entire slate of electors gets your vote (Mississippi has 6
electors, as it has 4 House members and 2 Senators). As such, whomever gets the
most votes in the general election (a plurality, not necessarily a majority)
gets all of that state’s presidential electors. Every state except two have
that winner-take-all system. Why? States believe that that system increases
their importance, encouraging candidates to visit their state and to care about
its concerns. Mississippi for example might be a smaller state, but 6 votes
might make the difference in a close election. But remember, the federal
constitution still leaves it up to the state legislatures to decide how to
divide their electoral votes. These changes started during Jacksonian Democracy
and were enacted by the states, not by any federal constitutional amendment. Indeed,
today two states divide their electors in a different way that they think is
more democratic and fairer to those who voted for the losing candidate. Maine
and Nebraska give two of their electoral votes to the statewide winner, and 1
electoral vote to whomever wins each of their U.S. House districts (Maine has 2
and Nebraska 3 house districts). Usually, this electoral college system
merely magnifies the winning margin of the presidential candidate, as they tend
to win a larger percentage of the electoral vote than they do the popular vote.
But in this century, we have had two split outcomes. Democrats Al Gore in 2000
and Hillary Clinton in 2016 won the popular vote nationally, but lost the
electoral vote. Why? Well, they won Democratic states like California and New
York in landslides, but then narrowly lost some key battleground states (like
Ohio and Florida for Gore, and much of the Rust Belt states for Clinton).
That’s how our constitution works. What do you think? Should we change (amend)
the constitution, abolish the electoral college, and require that the popular
vote winner nationally be selected as President? Some say yes, but look at the
increased regionalism in American politics. There is a world of difference
between Mississippi and California. The current system shows the importance of
states, and the importance of their differing cultures.
It is also important to know that the
term of office for the President is 4 years. Originally, there
was no limit on the number of terms a President could serve.
Washington established a 2-term tradition, as did Jefferson. The only person
who violated that tradition was Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), who was elected to
4 terms; in 1940 he won a third term arguing that the world was close to world
war, and in 1944 he won while we were in World War 2. Finally, he died the next
year, and the change was that we adopted the 22ndconstitutional
amendment in 1951 to limit a President to only 2 terms. Many people felt
that the President had become too powerful.
4) The Supreme Court is
a very elitist body, insulated from the people. The justices are nominated by
the President and confirmed by the Senate (by
a majority vote). So, the Supreme Court judges are selected by a President
selected by an electoral college, and then confirmed by a body with 6-year
terms that originally was selected by the state legislatures. They are also
very insulated from the people by having life terms (“Good
Behavior” terminology). The only way to get rid of them is through impeachment
(which has never happened yet), or if they retire or die. Clearly, this body
would really protect the constitution and our liberties from the ignorant and
emotional masses. One example of that was the Brown v. Board of Education
decision in 1954 which struck down state laws requiring racial segregation in
the public schools, a very unpopular decision among southern whites, but a
decision that finally protected the rights of racial minorities. No real change
in these procedures over time, though Biden Democrats floated the idea of fixed
18-year terms in reaction to the conservative-oriented court that he faced. The
life terms provide the judges great independence, and just this year three of
the six Republican appointed judges voted with the Democratic appointed judges
to reject President Trump’s effort to deny birthright citizenship to the
children born in the U.S. of illegal/undocumented immigrants.
There are few constitutional requirements for holding office.
Given the relative importance of the people in the different offices, the House
has the more lenient requirements, the Senate greater requirements, and the
President the greatest. So for age, you must be at least 25 for the House, 30
for the Senate, and 35 for the President. You must be an inhabitant of the
state for the House or Senate, and must have been a U.S. resident for 14 years
at least before becoming President. You can be a naturalized citizen for
Congress, but you must have been a U.S. citizen at least 7 years for the House
and 9 for the Senate. For the President, you must be a natural born citizen.
That means, you must have been born in the United States, or you must have a parent
who is a U.S. citizen. So a child born in the U.S. of an undocumented immigrant
can become President! The post-Civil War 14th amendment says that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” and their state. Trump
would like to strip children born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants of their U.S.
citizenship, arguing that their parents were here illegally and therefore not
subject to U.S. laws, but past practice and the recent court decision has only
stripped American born children of foreign diplomats of U.S. citizenship.
Congress’ powers, under the constitution are important. 1) They
have the money powers, as they make appropriations (the power of the purse),
they raise taxes, and they coin and borrow money. But while these powers are
listed in Article 1 under Congress of the constitution, these powers must all
be done by law. And remember that the President does have the veto power. (It’s
interesting that despite the bitter partisan divide existing in America today,
our institutions often unite during a national crisis. By law we did pass very
expensive emergency legislation to help people and businesses hurt by the
Coronavirus, we did pass emergency financial industry bailout legislation in
2008 and 2009, and we did pass important laws after the 9-11 terrorist attack.)
2) Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states, and between
the U.S. and other nations. While Congress has given the President considerable
power to apply those laws in specific circumstances (permitting trade wars),
Congress still does vote on important trade bills such as the old NAFTA. In
December and January 2020, Congress did vote in favor of Trump’s USMCA trade
agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. The vote was about a 90-10
split in favor, as White House trade negotiators wisely took into account
Democratic concerns and desires in renegotiating the agreement. Trump in his
second term threatened tariffs on every nation in order to getting better trade
deals for the U.S.; if Congress had wanted to, they could have passed
legislation limiting his powers (the Supreme Court did strike down some of his
tariffs as violating federal law). The interstate commerce clause gave Congress
the constitutional authority to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, outlawing
racial discrimination in public accommodations (private businesses that serve
the public). 3) Congress has the power to declare war. This is an important
power. It last used this power officially in World War 2, as FDR came to
Congress after Pearl Harbor and asked for a formal declaration of war against
Germany and Japan (and achieved Unconditional Surrender). The Korean War was
pursued under a United Nations Security Council resolution that we voted for
(the Soviet Union had unwisely been absent, as they were protesting the UN’s
refusal so far to recognize the communist victory over mainland China). The
Vietnam War was authorized by Congress under a Tonkin Gulf resolution that gave
the President power to take “all necessary actions” to protect American
interests in the southeast Asia area (President Johnson proceeded to send half
a million young American men to fight there). In both wars, Congress did
authorize a forceable draft of military age men. After the War Powers Act was
passed, Congress did vote to authorize our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In
2025 the U.S. House voted against an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s
preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program, with pro-impeachment
Democrats arguing that Trump had not consulted with Congress beforehand. So,
Congress does not formally declare war anymore, but it does have an important
role in authorizing and supporting war actions. Perhaps we no longer wanted to
get too formal in the nuclear age and during the Cold War with the Soviet
Union, since an unconditional war could lead to a nuclear war. 4) Other Congressional
powers. We have a national post office that assures delivery everywhere, but
Trump is concerned that they’re not charging enough and are running a deficit.
Congress makes rules for the territories, and rules for them to enter as
states; the debate over whether new states would enter the nation as free or
slave states of course led to the Civil War. Congress exercises exclusive
legislation over the District of Columbia, but they have granted D.C.
considerable local governmental powers; D.C. does not have any (voting)
Congressional representation, but it does have 3 electoral votes for President.
Finally, Congress has the power to “To
establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” meaning that they pass the
laws on immigration and naturalized citizenship; unfortunately, these laws were
last updated during the Reagan Presidency.
Differences between the two Congressional
chambers. 1) Under the
constitution, bills raising revenue must originate (start) in the House (since
it is closer to the people), but they can of course be amended in the Senate.
In the past, this meant that the House Ways and Means Committee and the House
as a whole got first crack at taxation legislation, and the Senate Finance
Committee and the full Senate would take their bill, and make its own changes
in it. Today, it’s more like just passing another bill- it must pass both
chambers in identical form, eventually. However, Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill in
2025 extending his tax cuts and cutting Medicaid was passed by the House first,
the Senate made changes in it, and the House then approved the Senate’s
version. 2) The Senate has the advise and consent power. By a majority vote,
the Senate must confirm (approve) presidential nominations of executive branch
heads, our ambassadors to other nations, and all federal judges. This is an
important watchdog power. President Nixon had two Supreme Court justices
rejected by the Senate, one for conflict of interest charges, and the
other after being accused of racism and being mediocre. President George
Herbert Walker Bush (the father) had Senator Tower rejected by the senate for
the position of Secretary of Defense as he was accused of being a drunk and of
chasing a woman around his desk. Betsy DeVos, a Republican party activist from
Michigan and a supporter of school choice and vouchers was opposed by public
school forces, and was confirmed for Trump’s first Secretary of Education by a
51-50 vote, as Vice President Pence broke the tie. Trump’s Secretary of Defense
in his second term, Pete Hegseth, was also confirmed by a 51-50 vote. 3)
Treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and they are so important that they
require a two-thirds vote. Some important examples. The Senate rejected
President Wilson’s treaty ending World War 1 and making us members of the first
world organization, the League of Nations, as they feared that we would lose
some of our national sovereignty; the League became so weak that Germany was
able to rearm, and World War 2 occurred. After World War 2, President Truman
negotiated the NATO military alliance between the U.S., Canada, and West
European nations, and the Senate easily ratified it, and we sent a few hundred
thousand troops back to Europe; this successfully prevented the Soviet Union
from invading western Europe. (Interestingly enough, under that treaty our
Senate has to vote whenever a new country joins NATO, so when Trump complained
about some insignificant countries being in NATO, why would we fight for them,
the Senate proceeded to vote in 2019 by 91-2 to let North Macedonia join;
Finland and Sweden joined NATO during the Biden presidency, in response to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the U.S. senate voted 95-1 to admit them.).
In the late 1970s, President Carter negotiated the Panama Canal treaty that as
a good will measure to a developing nation gave the canal back to Panama by the
year 2000; the Senate had some concerns, so Carter negotiated some reservations
and understandings with Panama to get the treaty ratified (U.S. ships would
have the right to go to the head of the line in an emergency, we had the right
to use military force to keep the canal open if anyone threatened to close it).
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did a great job on the phone with individual
Republican and Democratic senators to convince them to ratify a nuclear arms
control agreement with Russia (New START) by a 71-26 margin. Obama’s next
Secretary of State, John Kerry, did not even try to get his nuclear control
treaty with Iran ratified by the Senate, fearing that Republicans would reject
it; as such, a new President like Trump was able to kill its existence as a
mere “executive agreement” of Obama's lacking constitutional authorization.
President Biden and Russia renewed the New START treaty, but it expired in early
2026.
Presidential Powers. Under the constitution, I have 7 listed in my
notes, so here goes:
1) The President is the chief executive, and “he
shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Congress passes the
laws, and the President must enforce them. Nixon violated this oath of office
by committing obstruction of justice, so he resigned. A critical issue is
whether recent presidents like Obama, Trump, and Biden have violated their
oaths by issuing Executive Orders that are inconsistent with specific federal
laws. A growing problem is Presidents seeking to enact their campaign promises
by having their appointees to federal agencies twist the interpretation of
federal laws, rather than trying to get Congress to change the federal laws
that they disagree with.
2) The President “may require the opinion of the
principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject
relating to their duties.” That is interpreted to mean that the President is
the head of the executive branch; he nominates heads of federal departments,
and he can direct their actions. A gray area is what about the FBI and Justice
Department? Trump and some legal scholars have argued that the President can
actually terminate federal investigations (such as into possible Russian collusion
with a presidential campaign), but remember that Congress makes the
appropriations (funds) to federal agencies. If they lost confidence in any
executive branch agency, they could cut its budget. Indeed, some liberals have
lost confidence in the immigration and border patrol, and even shut down the
Department of Homeland Security temporarily seeking reforms in their
enforcement actions.
3) The President has the power to grant pardons for
federal offenses, except in the case of impeachment. When Nixon violated the
federal law on obstruction of justice, his successor President Ford pardoned
him for any federal crime he may have committed as President. But, remember we
are talking about the federal government, and federal crimes. States have their
own constitutions, and most crimes are defined by state law. If the President
violates a state law, he could only be pardoned by the governor of that state
(state constitutions typically give their chief executives that power over
state laws). Trump so angered liberal Democrats that state attorney generals in
New York and Georgia indicted him for allegedly violating their state laws
(those indictments were dismissed after Trump won reelection). Can a President
be indicted for a federal crime while he is President? Some Trump haters said
he could, but under Nixon it was believed that a President could not be.
However, after a President leaves office, he becomes a private citizen, and he
can be indicted. So, Congress can impeach and remove the President, and then a
federal prosecutor can indict him. Oddly enough, the U.S. Supreme Court during
the Clinton years held that a President can be sued in a civil lawsuit, so
Clinton was forced to give testimony regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit
occurring while he was governor (the court held that giving private testimony
would not take up so much time that it would interfere with his duties as
President). However, Clinton lied under oath. Though he was acquitted of
impeachment, before leaving the Presidency he did agree to a plea bargain
whereby he surrendered his law license for a few years. Can a President pardon
himself of a federal crime before he leaves office? We think that he can, but
none have tried to do this. Both Presidents Biden and Trump have been accused
of violating the spirit of the pardon power, with Biden preemptively pardoning
(before indictments) his son Hunter and some political allies of alleged
federal crimes, and Trump mass pardoning over one thousand of his supporters
convicted of storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021; perhaps Congress should
attempt to pass a law limiting the pardon power to specific cases of convicted
individuals.
4) The President has foreign affairs powers, such
as to “receive ambassadors” (other countries’ representatives to our nation).
This is the power of diplomatic recognition; we recognize that that government
is the legitimate government of that nation. After the communists took over
mainland China in 1949, the U.S. government kept diplomatic recognition of the
non-communist Chinese who had fled to the island of Taiwan and rejected
communist China’s official representative. President Nixon visited China, but
it wasn’t until President Carter in the late 1970s that the U.S. government
officially recognized the communist Chinese government as the official,
legitimate government of China. So what happened to the pro-American,
non-communist Taiwanese? Well, the essence of politics is compromise. The U.S.
government agreed that there is “one China, and that Taiwan is a part of
China;” however, we maintain unofficial ties with Taiwan, and we sell them arms
so that mainland China will not invade them. This is why the Chinese government
is enraged when the U.S. sells arms to Taiwan or when its officials visit
Taiwan; they feel that we are violating this one China policy; also, some
Taiwanese (including their leader) seek independence from China. Since the
Islamic government of Iran seized American diplomats as hostages in 1979 in
protest of our support for the deposed leader, the Shah, the U.S. has not had
diplomatic relations with Iran (it maintains a virtual embassy from
Switzerland).
5) The President is Commander in chief of the army
and navy, when they are “called into the service of the U.S.” So, we have
civilian control of our military; we have never had a military governmental
dictatorship. Occasionally, a pompous general like Doug MacArthur or George
Patton will get arrogant and publicly criticize the President’s foreign and
defense policy, and guess what happens to them? The President fires them. In
the nationwide protests and riots over racial injustices, President Trump
threatened to use the military to quell the rebellions if the state governors
and mayors refused to take tough actions, but did not do so; in 2025, Trump did
send the military into California to protect ICE officials and facilities.
During the January 6 insurrection, an angry President Trump did nothing for
three hours as rioters occupied the Capital, and Vice President Pence was the
one who called in the national guard. Interesting world we live in!
6) The President shall from time to time deliver a
State of the Union address, recommending to Congress legislation that he deems
necessary. This has evolved into an annual address to a joint session of
Congress meeting in the large House chambers. In recent decades partisanship
has been so great that you can watch how Democrats and Republicans seated
separately react; Trump would say something, and Republicans would stand up and
vigorously applaud; Democrats would sit on their hands. The presiding officers
sit behind the President, and you could see Vice President Pence (constitution,
he presided over the Senate in Trump’s first term) standing and applauding,
while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat, since Democrats controlled the
House by outnumbering Republicans after Trump’s first midterm election)
smirked. Indeed, in a one State of the Union address, at its conclusion she
tore up a printed copy of his address. Relations between the parties were so
bad in one year that Speaker Pelosi delayed by a few weeks Trump’s address (by
withdrawing her official invitation to him to use the House chambers),
prompting Trump to strand Pelosi at the airport (he withdrew her use of a
military plane to fly abroad). The smartest thing for a President to do is to have
genuine American heroes sitting in the galleries, whom he can introduce. Reagan
started this practice, by introducing a private citizen who had jumped into the
Potomac trying to rescue people from a downed plane. Congress members of both
parties stand, and vigorously applaud and cheer such people. Today, the one
group that is guaranteed such universal applause is our military, so the
President will typically praise them in his speech (oddly enough, Biden’s last
address neglected to do this, as it was a very partisan, campaign-oriented
speech).
The Presidential Veto power. Typically, if
Congress does its job and comes up with wise legislation that benefits our
country the President will just sign the bill. If it is important, he will have
a public ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, and invite the congress
members of both parties who worked hard on the bill. He will sign his name,
using a different pen for each letter of his name, and then give those pens to
the Congress members. Unfortunately, partisanship has become so great that sometimes
only members of one party show up, such as for the signing of Trump’s Big
Beautiful Bill. If the President strongly disagrees with a bill, the President
will veto that bill, and send a written message to Congress saying why he
vetoed it. Congress can try to override his veto, or they could pass a new bill
that takes into account his concerns. It’s hard to override, as each chamber
votes separately, and each needs a two-thirds vote. But again, if the chief
executive is being unreasonable and Congress works in a bipartisan fashion,
they can get the votes. In Mississippi, the state legislature successfully
overrode two governors to pass major legislation to four lane one thousand
miles of roads in 1987, and increased taxes to help public education and the
universities in 1992 (plus build our nice university library). A President may
slightly disagree with a bill, but he doesn’t feel strongly enough to veto it,
so he can just refuse to sign the bill, and it becomes law without his
signature after 10 days. The only time that a bill will die without his
signature is if Congress adjourns within that 10-day period (this is a pocket
veto). Nixon used the pocket veto if he didn’t want to publicly say why he
opposed a bill. Legislatures typically will “officially” wait to adjourn by
keeping one member in town during this period.
The Vice Presidency, under the constitution has two
powers. Though he (or she) is the President of the Senate, he votes only if
there is a tie (There is seldom a tie, though in recent years of a
bitterly-divided Senate Kamala Harris had to vote 33 times to break a tie, and
J.D. Vance broke ties over a budget cut rescission measure.). So typically, he
isn’t even around to preside over Senate debate. The Vice President does become
President, if the President leaves office. This process has been clarified
under the 25th amendment adopted in the 1960s after Eisenhower
had had a heart attack and after Kennedy had been assassinated (and his
successor Johnson went a year without a Vice President). That amendment states
that when there is a Vice Presidential vacancy, the President will nominate
someone as Vice President, and that nomination must be confirmed by a majority
of the House and the Senate, voting separately. This amendment was used during
the Nixon presidency. First, his Vice President resigned, after pleading no
contest to taking a bribe while governor of Maryland. Under a federal presidential
succession law, it goes as follows: after the Vice President comes the Speaker
of the House, then the President Pro Tem of the Senate, then the Secretary of
State. The House Speaker was a Democrat, and Democrats controlled the Congress.
They could have been very partisan and nasty, and sought the Presidency by
denying Nixon’s vice presidential nomination and then impeaching him, but Nixon
was smart, and came up with the likeable, humble House Republican leader from
Michigan Gerald Ford, who was confirmed as Vice President. Nixon resigned, so
Ford became our first and only “unelected” President. Ford then nominated
respected and progressive Republican (back when both parties were not so
ideologically distinct) governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, as Vice
President, who was also confirmed. Another section of the 25th amendment
provides for an Acting President, if the President is not able to discharge his
duties. That takes care of the Woodrow Wilson case, who had a stroke late in
his term. Presidents like Bush have “officially” invoked this clause if they
were under anesthesia for a minor medical operation. What if a President can’t
really discharge his duties, but he thinks that he can? The last section of
this amendment says that the Vice President and a majority of the heads of the
executive branch can notify Congress that it has voted to make the Vice
President Acting President. If the President disagrees with this action, then
Congress must make the final decision; but it takes a two-thirds vote of each
chamber to prevent the President from keeping his power. This has never been
invoked, but there were rumors about maybe doing this after Trump fired the FBI
Director James Comey. Also, during the January 6, 2021 insurrection, Vice
President Pence independently asserted the Presidential power to protect the
Capitol, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 2025, the
Republican-controlled Congress investigated former President Biden’s declining
mental state in his last year in office, which is another example of the wisdom
of the 25th amendment.
The Supreme Court is discussed in the third article of
the federal constitution, so the Founders kind of expected it to be the least
important body. Plus, it’s not my area of expertise, so if you are interested
in it I suggest taking Professor Whit Waide, who has a law degree, he’s
dynamic, the students love him, and he directs and teaches our pre-law courses.
Plus, we will cover this subject late in the course. Briefly, the federal
constitution just says that there will be one Supreme Court, its judges serve
for life, and Congress can create lower federal courts. The Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over federal laws, the federal constitution’s interpretation, and
treaties. Congress over the last hundred years has settled on having 9 Supreme
Court judges, and has beaten back efforts to increase its size to satisfy a President’s
agenda (FDR failed to increase its size to 15; he would have nominated the
additional 6 judges, and his party controlling the Senate would have confirmed
them; that attempt was too much even for the Democrats at that time,
particularly more conservative southern Democrats.).
Congress
by law quickly created lower federal courts- the federal district courts (trial
courts), and the federal courts of appeals. As such, the Supreme Court
typically just hears cases on appeal from the federal appeals courts (and from
state courts if they involve federal issues).
Constitutional Amendment process. Well, it’s easier to amend the
constitution than the unanimous Confederate constitution required, but it’s not
too easy. It is also a two-stage process with the federal government and the
states involved. The usual process is that a constitutional amendment will be
proposed by Congress, and must then be ratified by the states. It requires a
two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress, and then a three-fourths vote of
the states (their state legislatures, typically). An alternate method of
ratification lets Congress call for special state conventions to be held to
consider ratification, but it was used only once, to repeal prohibition; why
use this separate body when you have existing state legislatures (maybe
Congress thinks that the legislatures do not reflect the people’s will on this
one issue). An alternative method of proposing amendments has never been used.
If Congress refuses to propose a popular amendment, then two-thirds of the
states’ legislatures can call for a national constitutional convention to
consider a specific issue. It has never been used, as why would Congress oppose
a popular amendment; typically, when states start calling for a particular
amendment, Congress will just pass it themselves. Also, a national constitutional
convention is a little scary. When did we last have a constitutional
convention? The Philadelphia convention, called to consider revising the
existing constitution, and it ended up throwing it out, and writing a
completely new constitution. Today, the federal government keeps failing to
balance the federal budget and keeps going into debt, so some Republican
officials would like to see a balanced federal budget amendment.
The Bill of Rights. We’ll talk more about them later
in the course. Many Americans in 1788 feared that the new federal government
would be too powerful and would trample on their rights, so after it was
ratified Congress quickly adopted these first ten amendments to protect people
from the federal government. Under the 14th amendment due
process clause pertaining to the states, these amendments today also apply to
the states. Some of the key ones:
1st amendment- free speech, free press, freedom of
assembly and right to petition government. Religious protections- government
cannot “establish” religion, or prohibit its “free exercise”. Class discussion-
do you feel completely free to say whatever you wish? In the 1950s some
liberals were accused of being “communists” if they opposed our foreign policy.
Today, some people lose their jobs if they are “politically incorrect.”
Religion-
what do you think about state and local governments shutting down church
services during Easter during the pandemic? What about some localities even
preventing people from staying in their cars with their windows rolled up in
the church parking lots?
What
about people protesting the police shootings of African Americans? Obviously,
people have that right, as long as they don’t commit crimes like property
damage. What do you think about Trump supporters walking into the restricted
area of the Capitol to protest the counting of the electoral votes that made
Biden officially President, and even committing property damage and threatening
the Capitol police? Or people protesting ICE immigration enforcement actions
across the country, sometimes throwing things at police or damaging property?
2nd amendment- right to bear arms. What do you
think that that means? Can you own a machine gun, or a semi-automatic rifle? Is
there a need for more gun control laws to try to stop mass shootings?
4th amendment- right to be secure against
“unreasonable” searches and seizures. After 9-11, a federal law permitted the
government to spy on its own citizens if they had contact with suspect
foreigners, but they had to get a warrant from a special court. The Justice
Department spied on Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn as
he had contacts with the Russian ambassador. Even though he was a former
General with combat medals, he may have been rattled by being interviewed by
the FBI, so he may have misled them about those conversations. He ended up
pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, but then retracted that guilty plea. President
Trump pardoned him in 2020.
Another
area of emerging privacy concern is your cell phones, which can track your
locations. Do you really feel safe from governmental surveillance, including
that of public universities?
5th amendment- right against self-incrimination,
prohibition of double jeopardy. Government can’t force you to testify against
yourself, but watch out for federal investigators. FBI Director Comey’s book
makes clear that every year thousands of people are convicted for “misleading”
or “lying” to federal investigators. I used to think that only perjury could
get you jailed, since you do swear to tell the truth on a Bible, but you can
also go to jail for your conversations with federal investigators. Comey admitted
that this was often a “low lying fruit”, that like in the Martha Stewart case,
the feds couldn’t prove that she had broken the specific federal law (insider
trading), so they went after any untruthful statement she made to
investigators. That’s one reason I think that Trump refused to talk in person
with the Special Counsel; he just answered questions in writing. The double
jeopardy prohibition results in prosecutors taking their time to build their
case, since they only get one shot at the defendant. If you are found not
guilty unanimously by the jury, you cannot be tried again. If it is a hung jury
(divided), you can be retried. However, remember that we have different levels
of government. The same criminal act could result in prosecution for two
different crimes at two different levels. So, a cop might be found not guilty
of first-degree murder as defined by state law, but the feds could indict him
and he could be found guilty of a federal hate crime or of interfering with a
person’s civil rights.
6th amendment- you have the right of counsel in
criminal cases where you could go to prison, and if you can’t afford one a
lawyer will be appointed to defend you.
8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment, which the Supreme Court today interprets to mean that only in cases
of first-degree murder can you get the death penalty.