Constitution Documentary

i'm color 10's political analyst brian calfano the single most distinguishing feature of american government is our constitution ratified in 1788 and in effect since march of 1789 the u.s constitution is the oldest in the world and it provides the basic rules for how our government is organized and what it does yet americans lack knowledge of the documents contents in a 2014 national survey conducted for the annenberg center only 36 percent of respondents could name the three branches of the federal government and only 35 percent could name one branch meanwhile one-fifth of survey respondents thought that a 5-4 supreme court decision requires congress to reconsider the case we put these constitutional questions to our ozarks neighbors i don't know executive legislation executive legislative and judicial the legislative the executive and the judicial branch on one level some of these responses are evidence that we don't talk about democracy and its principles enough to keep them at the top of our minds americans should be aware of the basics of our government and how it works so that we may be constantly on the alert to preserve our democratic processes and institutions in response we're embarking on a courageous conversation our constitution made easy over the next hour we'll offer you fast and easy ways to explain what the constitution says and what it doesn't we start with a brief history of what led our founders to write and adopt the constitution from there we examine the constitution's first three articles that lay out the roles of the three branches of our federal government next we go over the major amendments that enshrine the rights we hold most dear as americans along the way we talk about the other key issues in the constitution's development since 1789. finally we discuss how to amend the constitution and the option of a convention of the states to create an entirely new document so join us now on our courageous conversation our constitution made easy [Music] [Applause] well here's a little trivia for you the u.s constitution is actually the nation's second such document while the 13 colonies fought the revolutionary war with britain they entered into an agreement of union known as the articles of confederation people alive today who think the federal government has too much power might have liked these articles they gave the federal government very little power for example it couldn't coin money or regulate commerce and congress only had one chamber these representatives in the chamber were appointed by the state legislatures and were term limited now only the federal government could declare war under the articles and the states had to raise the money to pay for any conflicts the articles were to quote perpetuate a mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states of this union end quote but by 1787 it was clear to many that protecting american merchants on the high seas and repelling any attempts by britain to reclaim the lost colonies required more than a friendship between the states this is why the founders met for the constitutional convention in philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787 to create our current system with shared power between the states and a much stronger federal government our constitution's preamble begins with the words we the people as former president ronald reagan said quote our constitution is a document in which we the people tell the government what it is allowed to do [Music] after the preamble the constitution launches into article one this is the section that spells out what congress is supposed to be and how it functions it might be tempting to think of the three government branches as equal but our founders didn't think of them this way congress is the branch mentioned in article 1 and for good reason it is set up to be the most powerful of the three branches think about it congress controls the money creates law and has the power to remove all officials in the other two branches of course while the presidency has grown in power since fdr's administration in the 1930s and the supreme court has become more influential since the 1950s neither can touch congress in terms of its constitutional power article 1 says the congress will consist of a house comprised of representatives directly elected by the people based on population and a senate where two members from each state are sent to washington initially u.s senators were elected by state legislatures but the 17th amendment adopted in 1913 changed that to the direct election of senators as is the practice today of course there are 435 members of the house and 100 members of the senate article 1 also spells out what congress can do among these jobs are the regulation of commerce the power to tax oversight of the federal government establishing a post office coining money promoting the progress of science and useful arts and declaring war congress is also responsible for the administration of our nation's capital washington d.c one thing congress can't do grant titles of nobility you might also say it can't get anything done and that's actually part of article one's doing any bill must pass both the house and the senate in the exact same form before going to the president's desk that's a tall order with 535 senators and representatives to deal with [Music] the constitution's article 2 outlines the office of the president for many the president is the most visible part of the federal government but much of what we look to the president for now in terms of political leadership just really isn't grounded in article 2. for example though article 2 makes the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the head of the executive branch it does not make him the nation's political focal point there are no provisions for the president to propose and promote a legislative agenda or to act as a role model all things we tend to invest the presidency with in modern times we asked our ozarks neighbors how they view the presidency strong good an office in which a lot of power is invested in dignity and purpose good people that are kind each other iconic important traditional article two says the president can grant pardons nominate judges and justices to the federal courts and negotiate treaties although both the treaties and nominations require senate approval historically the president's role in american life was shaped by the men holding the office washington jackson lincoln and wilson were examples of presidents whose actions were outsized for the scope of the office in their eras today the presidency scope which has increased steadily since the fdr era arguably shapes the men holding the office almost no one is prepared to be president of the united states there is simply no other position like it in the world the irony is that much of the modern presidency is nothing like the office described in the constitution's article 2. [Music] so [Music] [Applause] [Music] article 3 of the constitution covers the judicial branch of our federal government typically we're taught that congress makes the law the president enforces it and the courts interpret it which is known as judicial review but this isn't quite the case at least from a constitutional perspective article 3 actually never mentions that the courts have the authority to interpret laws the interpretive power is instead born from convention which began in 1803 when the court was asked to intervene in a dispute between the outgoing adams and incoming jefferson administrations this case known as marbury versus madison set the stage for later court interventions in assessing acts of congress and the president article 3 also defines acts of treason guarantees a right to trial by jury and criminal cases and defines the types of cases the supreme court hears under original jurisdiction meaning the supreme court is the first and only court to hear these kinds of cases which usually involve disputes between the states the constitution gives congress the power to establish all lower federal courts which it did with the judiciary act of 1789 this act set up the federal districts and courts of appeal so since the constitution seems to invest the courts with less power than the other two branches why are appointments to the court so politically charged well a lot has to do with the reality that the cases the court decided to hear have social and cultural impacts far beyond the laws and regulations that congress and the president deal with whether our founders envision the court to have this amount of influence is a matter of intense debate between legal scholars but you can decide for yourself whether our courts have gotten too big for their constitutional britches [Music] [Applause] political debate swirls over the relationship between the federal and state governments and often the arguments have a constitutional basis to start remember that it was the 13 original state governments that formed the federal government not the other way around in ratifying the constitution the states did not cede their sovereignty as governments instead they agreed to what's known as a federal system in which both the states and the federal government have certain powers some that are shared between the governments and some that are exclusive to one level of government or the other the constitution's article 4 spells out some of the details of this federal state relationship as does part of article 1 in talking about congress's authority in fact most of what the constitution does is tell the states the powers the federal government has and what the states cannot do with all other powers basically left to the states so what are these federal government powers the states can't have well they include coining money providing an army and navy entering into foreign treaties and establishing a uniform system of weights and measures article 4 also tells the states that they must honor the acts and proceedings of other states provide for criminal extradition and allow people to move freely from one state to another the federal government is also on the hook for keeping each state safe from invasion and for guaranteeing that the states provide a republican form of government meaning one where the people elect their representatives to run each state now if you think about all the things i left out of the federal government's constitutional responsibilities you'll see why some argue that the federal government's size and scope these days is too big it's probably naive to think that we can have a federal government that does so little in the modern world we now inhabit but the founders original ideas about the federal government's role are some food for thought [Music] [Applause] some of our founders wanted certainty that the federal government respected certain rights of the people this was the basis for the bill of rights which are the first ten amendments to the constitution ratified in 1791. the first amendment is probably the best known the amendment is only 45 words long and its first 16 lay out the prohibition on congress for making a law that either establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of religion the question is just how absolute the so-called establishment and free exercise clauses should be when the first amendment went into effect several states actually had designated christian denominations as official churches and the thinking at the time was that the federal government should not be in the business of endorsing one denomination or religion over another but does that mean that preventing the establishment of religion keeps the government entirely separate from faith institutions to use one example from a 20th century supreme court decision is the government wrong to send the fire department to keep a church from burning to the ground what about the hot topic of a public school official leading a prayer at graduation ceremonies then there are questions about prohibiting the free exercise of religion does this mean you can abuse people or animals in the name of faith what about withholding medical treatment from children because of religious beliefs these difficult decisions have been left to the courts to sift through just what the balance between establishing and prohibiting the free exercise of religion should be often these rulings have made one side or the other mad at different times whatever your view know that the debate stems from just a 16 word phrase in the first amendment of a very important document [Music] of all the first amendment freedoms that of the press may be the strongest congress is prohibited from abridging the freedom of the press our founders considered a free press essential for an informed public to have the information it needs when it votes for those who run the government but government has challenged the rights of the press to report on sensitive topics the famed pentagon papers case for example that came before the supreme court in 1971 involved leaked documents about the vietnam war the government wanted to keep away from the new york times the practice known as prior restraint was rejected by the court on the basis of creating a bad precedent for government control of information today it is mainly the press that determines for itself what is and is not appropriate to inform the public about another key first amendment right is the freedom of speech unfortunately this right is not quite the way many imagine it it does not protect you against retaliation from non-government entities when you offer your political or non-political opinion at work on social media or in private gatherings this means it's possible for your boss to discipline or even fire you for bringing up politics at work so check what your employee emanuel says about the matter the first amendment's other two rights to peaceably assemble and to petition the government are also subject to some limitations including time place and manner restrictions this is why you can be arrested for staging a political protest in the middle of i-44 all this means that in reality the least restricted of first amendment rights is for the journalists and that's a good thing for our democratic republic [Music] [Applause] [Music] the second amendment to the u.s constitution ruffles a lot of political feathers here's what the amendment says quote 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 having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms and keeping the government in check was vital but those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term militia and say that this refers to the modern day national guard not all citizens gun proponents push back by saying that the militias at the time of the constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16 who could be pressed into the defense of their land and rights for years the supreme court refused to rule that the second amendment was incorporated meaning that it applied to all the states this is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use but the supreme court ruled in mcdonald versus the city of chicago in 2010 that the second amendment was incorporated and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional but this ruling did little to quell the second amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term well-regulated regulation implies some set of rules or standards and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment not the national guard it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent even the term arms raises questions does this mean simply guns or can we add bazookas and drones to this list after all people can own both even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century antonin scalia seemed to agree with some regulations of arms at least broadly defined this is an issue that will likely never be settled but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all of this controversy [Music] [Applause] above all our founders wanted to keep government power limited and out of the people's lives part of making sure government stays in check is the fourth amendment and shrining of quote the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures the idea was that the founders wanted to prevent political enemies from using the government to punish opponents or others who might just be unpopular in society this is why to search you or your property law enforcement usually has to get a writ of permission otherwise known as a warrant from a judge involving judges in the process was intended to spread the power to investigate and punish potential wrongdoers among multiple branches of government of course the fourth amendment's key term here is unreasonable where law enforcement can make a case that there is probable cause to believe someone committed a crime warrants are quickly issued and it might interest you to know that there are over 20 exceptions to requiring a warrant to do a search these include the plain sight and exigent circumstances doctrines and they deal with situations in which law enforcement seize a crime in progress or believe that one is imminent the founders also codified rights against self-incrimination or testifying against yourself in the fifth amendment this is where the phrase pleading the fifth comes from meanwhile the fifth amendment also prevents double jeopardy which is being tried for the same crime twice and perhaps most importantly states clearly that no one shall be denied life liberty or property without the due process of law our justice system isn't perfect of course and people may still fall victim to corruption and incompetence in criminal investigations but the fourth and fifth amendments go a long way to securing some key safeguards of our individual liberties [Music] [Applause] [Music] two of the most important amendments for understanding how our founders viewed both the rights of citizens and the role of the federal government are the ninth and tenth the question of rights was on the founders minds from the beginning of the constitutional convention in 1787 their view was that the rights of all humanity come from nature or nature's god not from the government a goal in creating the current federal system of government was to articulate the roles and more importantly the limitations of government in the lives of its citizens debates raged among the founders over whether to include specific enumerated rights in the constitution in the end the bill of rights provided this list in the first eight amendments the ninth amendment was added as a sort of catch-all to explicitly state that the rights of the people go far beyond those listed in the constitution in other words we have more rights than what the amendments talk about meanwhile the 10th amendment was included to remind the federal government that it only had the power granted to it in the constitution all other rights are reserved to the states and or the people the complication of course is that these unlisted rights are open to interpretation and perspective the courts are often dragged into questions over rights that reside in this unlisted group giving the court perhaps more power than the founders intended still the purpose of the ninth and tenth amendments is clear our founders while appreciating the need for a strong federal government wanted one that expressly limited itself in terms of its role and respected the rights of the people both listed and not [Music] [Applause] [Music] slavery was our nation's most divisive issue and it was the largest contributor to the nation's civil war at the end of the war in 1865 the southern states were years away from being readmitted to the union this enabled the northern states to take control of the constitutional amendment process between 1865 and 1870 congress and the union states ratified the civil war amendments the first the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude the exception for servitude was if it was imposed as a criminal punishment the 15th amendment extended the right to vote regardless of race or prior condition of servitude notice this amendment does not open up voting rights to both men and women that would come later i skipped over the 14th amendment for a reason its influence extends far beyond the scope of the other civil war amendments amendment 14 redefined citizenship prior to the civil war citizenship was considered a state-based distinction and people generally considered themselves citizens of their individual states given that the states existed before the federal government the 14th amendment changed this dynamic entirely stating that the people are citizens of the united states first and then the state in which they reside and that they cannot be denied life liberty or property without the due process of law this change through the 14th amendment had the effect of stopping states from discriminating against citizens on the basis of race people could sue states in federal court for violating their rights as american citizens not simply as residents of a particular state the 14th amendment also enabled the supreme court to incorporate most of the bill of rights to all americans regardless of state residents this is why you will often hear the 14th amendment or due process referenced in legal proceedings to this very day [Music] [Applause] one question people sometimes ask is whether international treaties can override the u.s constitution the short answer is that a treaty cannot directly override a right or government power expressly stated in the constitution but treaties are influential and that they can expand the federal government's power only the federal government may enter into treaties with other nations article two's treaty clause gives the president the power to negotiate treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the senate this is where things get a little more complicated though according to u s law ratified treaties become part of u.s code meaning they have the force of law the supreme court ruled in missouri v holland in 1920 that the federal government could use treaties to expand its power beyond the so-called enumerated powers in article 1 section 8. these enumerated powers are the ones that include coining money and declaring war by contrast executive agreements which the president can negotiate with other nations without senate ratification cannot expend the federal government's power beyond its constitutional role since the constitution's article 6 contains the supremacy clause which states that federal law trumps state level law negotiated treaties can theoretically expand government powers over the states but this is not the same as the government negotiating a treaty that nullifies the second amendment or something similar that kind of treaty power over established rights in the constitution would clearly be unconstitutional [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] it's hard to believe but the right of women to vote in all states is less than 100 years old the original sections of the constitution made no provision for women's suffrage and it wasn't until the women's rights convention in seneca falls new york in 1848 that the modern day women's rights movement was born owing in part to the greater concentration of government power at the state level many in the movement believe that it was the state constitutions that should be amended to give women the right to vote the first state to allow women to vote was wyoming and it granted the right while it was a territory and then kept the provision when it became a state back in 1890 women's rights proponents grew increasingly agitated by the slow progress in securing the right to vote in the rest of the country however and protests and civil disobedience became more common by the early 20th century by 1918 several large northern and western states including new york illinois and california extended the rights of voting to women but the push for an amendment to the federal constitution seemed to stall until then president woodrow wilson changed his position on the issue and gave full support to women's suffrage congress overwhelmingly approved the suffrage amendment in the summer of 1919 with tennessee being the 36th state to approve the amendment clinching the needed three-fourths majority for ratification in 1920. what became the 19th amendment to our constitution states the rights of the citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex [Music] we call this segment constitution quick hits bite size info about what the constitution says on key topics the founders wanted the people protected from government overreach especially when it comes to putting people on trial this is why the sixth amendment calls for a speedy public trial timely notification of charges faced the right to face your accuser and the right to call witnesses amendment 7 provides the right to a trial by jury in civil cases so it's clear the founders were concerned about more than government abuse of power in criminal cases amendment 8 prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment in the founders time this likely meant a moratorium on drawing and quartering a common practice in the colonies now let's jump to amendment 20. for almost 150 years the president wasn't inaugurated to a new term until march after the presidential election talk about a lame duck amendment 20 made the presidential swearing-in at noon on january 20th following the election speaking of the president why can he or she only serve two terms this limit is not in the original constitution but is instead found in the 22nd amendment republicans in congress pushed for this amendment in response to fdr's election to an unprecedented four terms today the president can serve only two four-year terms or a total of 10 years in the case of a vice president taking over for an incapacitated president speaking of presidential succession you may have learned in school that after the vice president it is the secretary of state that's next in line for the oval office today the speaker of the house of representatives follows the vice president in the succession line after the speaker comes the president pro-temp of the senate this person is usually the longest-serving member of the senate's majority party only following the president pro tem does the secretary of state get to serve in the oval office and those are your constitution quick hits [Applause] [Music] you've heard us mention several amendments to the u.s constitution as part of this courageous conversation series in fact in including the bill of rights there are 27 amendments to the original document that went into effect back in 1789 our founders realized they did not have all the answers to the political problems of their day let alone the challenges that future generations would face so they created two plans for amending the constitution the first and thus far only path to amendments used since the constitution went into effect is for both chambers of congress to debate and pass an amendment by a two-thirds margin the amendment then goes to the states for consideration three-fourths of the state legislatures must then approve the amendment for it to go into effect in some cases the time for an amendment ratification is limited to a set period usually seven years to get the needed three-fourths of states after which the entire process must start all over again the national archives and records administration is charged with overseeing the amendment process along with the director of the federal register all 27 amendments to date have been approved by the congress state legislature approach but the constitution's article 5 actually gives the states a path to amending the document by having two-thirds of the state legislatures agree to holding a constitutional convention just like the one held in philadelphia in 1787 except for the 1787 convention this approach has never been tried and people are of different minds on whether calling a convention of the state would require the entire constitution to be rewritten or whether the topics could be limited to items like government spending and states rights with the rest of the current document remaining intact so far about 12 states have agreed to the idea of a convention so it's not likely to happen anytime soon still it's interesting to think about who might be our generations james madison the man often called the father of the constitution if we ever get to a new constitutional convention [Music] we've covered a lot in the last hour and we hope you'll use this information to help better inform your friends and neighbors about our constitution july 4th is a great time to reflect on all the blessings we have as a nation many of which are enshrined in the political system our constitution established i'm brian calfano thanks for joining us for another courageous conversation you

Channel: Charles Maulden

Views: 7,645

Keywords:

Id: sX62ItYoA4Y

Length: 34min 28sec (2068 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 06 2017