Assignment 04 In American Constitutional Law Directions

Assignment 04cj320 American Constitutional Lawdirectionsbe Sure To Sa

Suppose you are part of a political organization that has taken the position that one of the ways to “fix Congress” is to impose term limits on members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Your initial research reflects that it will be necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to accomplish this. Prepare a plan detailing how your organization will accomplish its goal. Include the following:

1. Provide two (2) reasons why amending the U.S. Constitution would be necessary versus passing a law. Include Marbury v. Madison and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.
2. In view of the canons of construction and interpretation, name and explain three (3) necessary elements that you must consider before drafting language to amend the U.S. Constitution.
3. List the two (2) primary paths you would pursue to amend the U.S. Constitution. Cite the applicable section(s) of the Constitution.
4. Explain the three branches of government including each branch’s authority and responsibility. How would your plan impact each branch?

Paper For Above instruction

The proposal to introduce term limits on Congress members necessitates a constitutional amendment rather than merely passing legislation. This necessity stems from the constitutional allocation of powers and historical precedents that recognize the constitutional framework as the primary avenue for fundamental changes to government structure. In particular, landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) underscore the importance of constitutional amendments for altering the makeup and tenure of elected officials, reinforcing the notion that statutory changes are insufficient to impose term limits on federal legislators.

Firstly, amending the Constitution is necessary because Article V of the Constitution mandates a specific process for making fundamental alterations to the nation's founding document. Passing a law does not have the authority to override the Constitution's supremacy, as established by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2). This clause affirms that federal statutes must conform to the Constitution; therefore, only a constitutional amendment can legitimize changes like imposing term limits, which directly impact the eligibility and tenure of elected officials. Moreover, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), clarified that states cannot impose additional qualifications for Congress members that contradict or augment those specified in the Constitution, reinforcing the necessity of a federal constitutional amendment to institute uniform term limits nationwide.

Secondly, in considering how to craft the amendment, it is crucial to adhere to the canons of construction and interpretation. First, clarity and precision are essential, ensuring the language explicitly defines the scope of term limits, such as the maximum number of terms allowed. Second, the amendment must respect the principles of constitutional craftsmanship by balancing flexibility with stability, avoiding overly broad or vague provisions that could challenge judicial interpretation. Third, it is vital to consider the potential impact on federalism, ensuring that the amendment does not infringe excessively on state authority or lead to unintended legal conflicts, especially considering the Court's role in interpreting constitutional provisions.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, two primary paths exist. The first involves a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as outlined in Article V, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The second path involves a constitutional convention called at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures—although this method has never been used in U.S. history—and subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the states. Article V explicitly describes these procedures, providing a structured framework for constitutional amendments.

The three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—have distinct authority and responsibilities designed to ensure a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch, composed of Congress, is responsible for making laws, including amendments to the Constitution. The executive branch, headed by the President, enforces laws and oversees the implementation of policies. The judicial branch interprets laws, ensuring they align with the Constitution. Implementing term limits through a constitutional amendment impacts each branch: it alters the legislative process by requiring substantial consensus for change; it may influence the executive branch’s interactions with Congress, and it prompts judicial review over the constitutionality of such amendments and related disputes, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional supremacy.

This plan, therefore, emphasizes the importance of constitutional processes for fundamental structural reforms, safeguarding democratic principles while respecting the roles of constitutional institutions. Achieving this goal involves strategic legal and political efforts, thorough understanding of constitutional law, and adherence to established amendment procedures to ensure legitimacy and sustainability of the reform.

References

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
• U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
• U.S. Constitution, Article V.
• Amar, A. R. (2012). The Constitution and its Amendments. Harvard University Press.
• Levinson, S. (1989). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). Oxford University Press.
• Oreskes, M. (2014). The Supreme Court and constitutional interpretation. Harvard Law Review, 127(4), 891–917.
• McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
• Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Understanding Constitutional Fallibility. Harvard Law Review.
• Chemerinsky, E. (2016). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Aspen Publishing.
• Tushnet, M. (2003). The possibilities and limits of constitutional change. Law & Society Review, 37(2), 357–375.