1. Constitutional Principles
Chapter 5
Chapter 5: Constitutional Principles
Constitutional Principles
Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. Overview LO5-1: What is federalism?
LO5-2: How does the U.S. government's system of checks and balances operate?
LO5-3: What effects does the commerce clause have on the government's regulation of business?
LO5-4: How does the Bill of Rights protect the citizens of the United States?

3. Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 1
Peter Mallory and James Reid were widely considered by their peers and by the community-at-large the very best officers the San Bernardino, California Police Department had to offer. Today, they were seeking to uphold that reputation. After weeks of tracking Malcolm Leary, a suspect in last year's gruesome murder of 32-year-old Rachel Vang, they had located and detained Leary pursuant to a validly issued arrest warrant. On their way back to headquarters in the squad car, with Mallory and Reid silent, Leary offers up a confession from the back seat, saying "I killed that witch because she deserved it, and if I have to spend the rest of my life in prison and eternity in hell for doing it, it was worth it!" Both Mallory and Reid are shocked that Leary "broke" so easily, but they are happy to have the confession.
Prior to his declaration of murder, neither Mallory nor Reid had "Mirandized" Leary. Will Malcolm Leary's statement be admissible in his criminal prosecution, or will it be inadmissible based on a violation of the due process standard set forth in Miranda v. Arizona?
Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 1: Peter Mallory and James Reid were widely considered by their peers and by the community-at-large the very best officers the San Bernardino, California Police Department had to offer. Today, they were seeking to uphold that reputation. After weeks of tracking Malcolm Leary, a suspect in last year's gruesome murder of 32-year-old Rachel Vang, they had located and detained Leary pursuant to a validly issued arrest warrant. On their way back to headquarters in the squad car, with Mallory and Reid silent, Leary offers up a confession from the back seat, saying "I killed that witch because she deserved it, and if I have to spend the rest of my life in prison and eternity in hell for doing it, it was worth it!" Both Mallory and Reid are shocked that Leary "broke" so easily, but they are happy to have the confession.
Prior to his declaration of murder, neither Mallory nor Reid had "Mirandized" Leary. Will Malcolm Leary's statement be admissible in his criminal prosecution, or will it be inadmissible based on a violation of the due process standard set forth in Miranda v. Arizona?
[Instructor: See The Amendments to the Constitution in Chapter 5]

4. Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 2
Prosecutor Alicia Jones was cautiously optimistic that victory was hers. She had just tried the defendant Robert Howell for the first-degree murder of his father, Donovan Howell, a wealthy construction company owner from Charleston, South Carolina. Any prosecutor would have been pleased with the evidence Jones had introduced to the jury. Although there was no eyewitness to the murder, there was an abundance of circumstantial evidence, including three witnesses who had observed the younger Howell board his father's yacht at 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, June 27 (the body was found on the yacht later that same morning), a knife next to the elder Howell's body with his son's fingerprints on it, and the son's confession to Charleston County police on Friday, July 2. In light of all of the circumstantial evidence against his client, defense attorney Edward York had taken the risk of putting his client on the witness stand. Howell responded reasonably well to both direct examination and to Jones's cross-examination. After five days of deliberation, the jury announced that it was hopelessly deadlocked. After inquiring whether there was any possibility that further jury deliberation would resolve the impasse, and after the foreperson's response of "Most definitely not, your honor," Judge Gregory Williams officially declared a mistrial. Jones knew there was no way to predict what a jury would do and she had tried to ready herself, but she was nevertheless shocked by the jury's inability to reach a verdict.
Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 2: Prosecutor Alicia Jones was cautiously optimistic that victory was hers. She had just tried the defendant Robert Howell for the first-degree murder of his father, Donovan Howell, a wealthy construction company owner from Charleston, South Carolina. Any prosecutor would have been pleased with the evidence Jones had introduced to the jury. Although there was no eyewitness to the murder, there was an abundance of circumstantial evidence, including three witnesses who had observed the younger Howell board his father's yacht at 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, June 27 (the body was found on the yacht later that same morning), a knife next to the elder Howell's body with his son's fingerprints on it, and the son's confession to Charleston County police on Friday, July 2. In light of all of the circumstantial evidence against his client, defense attorney Edward York had taken the risk of putting his client on the witness stand. Howell responded reasonably well to both direct examination and to Jones's cross-examination. After five days of deliberation, the jury announced that it was hopelessly deadlocked. After inquiring whether there was any possibility that further jury deliberation would resolve the impasse, and after the foreperson's response of "Most definitely not, your honor," Judge Gregory Williams officially declared a mistrial. Jones knew there was no way to predict what a jury would do and she had tried to ready herself, but she was nevertheless shocked by the jury's inability to reach a verdict.
[Instructor: See The Amendments to the Constitution in Chapter 5]

5. Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 2 (cont'd)
After Williams's declaration of mistrial, Jones immediately polled the jury. She discovered that ten jurors were in favor of the defendant's conviction, with the remaining two jurors opposed. Those two jurors, Charles Yates and Carla Yoder, explained why they voted against conviction.
Yates, a 28-year-old divorced waiter with a 3-year-old son, explained to Jones that there was no way Howell could have committed murder. Said Yates, "He just seems like such a polite and well-mannered guy.… There is just no way he killed his father." Yoder, a sixty-eight-year-old retiree, had different reasons for her belief that defendant Howell was innocent. Yoder stated "Just because he was on his father's boat doesn't mean he killed his father. I believe the young man was framed. I believe the knife was planted on the boat, and I believe the police coerced his confession."
Jones is considering retrying Howell. Would the Fifth Amendment "double jeopardy" provision of the United States Constitution prohibit a retrial of Howell for the first-degree murder of his father?
Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 2 (cont'd): After Williams's declaration of mistrial, Jones immediately polled the jury. She discovered that ten jurors were in favor of the defendant's conviction, with the remaining two jurors opposed. Those two jurors, Charles Yates and Carla Yoder, explained why they voted against conviction.
Yates, a 28-year-old divorced waiter with a 3-year-old son, explained to Jones that there was no way Howell could have committed murder. Said Yates, "He just seems like such a polite and well-mannered guy.… There is just no way he killed his father." Yoder, a sixty-eight-year-old retiree, had different reasons for her belief that defendant Howell was innocent. Yoder stated "Just because he was on his father's boat doesn't mean he killed his father. I believe the young man was framed. I believe the knife was planted on the boat, and I believe the police coerced his confession."
Jones is considering retrying Howell. Would the Fifth Amendment "double jeopardy" provision of the United States Constitution prohibit a retrial of Howell for the first-degree murder of his father?
[Instructor: See The Amendments to the Constitution in Chapter 5]

6. What Is Federalism?
Principle of federalism: Authority is divided between federal and state governments
Foundation of the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution
Allocates power among the three federal branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial)
Establishes a system of checks and balances
The U.S. Constitution established a system of government based on the principle of federalism, according to which the authority to govern is divided between federal and state governments. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, all powers that the Constitution neither gives exclusively to the federal government nor takes from the states are reserved for the states. Because the federal government has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution, federal legislation that affects business must be based on an expressed constitutional grant of authority. It establishes a system of checks and balances, by granting powers to two branches that limit the powers of the third branch, and vice versa.

7. Checks and Balances: Legislative Branch's Powers
On executive branch:
Can refuse to approve President's budget
Can overrule presidential vetoes
Can refuse to approve presidential appointees
Can refuse to ratify treaties
Can impeach and remove president
On judicial branch:
Can pass amendments to overrule judicial rulings
Can impeach judges
Establishes lower courts and sets number of judges
A constitutional system of checks and balances established has been established within the organizational framework of the federal government. In the balance of power equation, the United States Congress (the legislative branch) has certain control over the executive and judicial branches. In restricting the power of the executive branch, Congress can refuse to approve the president's budget, overrule presidential vetoes, refuse to approve presidential appointees, refuse to ratify treaties, and impeach and remove the president. Congress also can restrict the power of the judicial branch, since it can pass amendments to overrule judicial rulings, impeach judges, and establish lower courts and set the number of judges.

8. Checks and Balances: Executive Branch's Powers
On legislative branch:
Can veto laws passed by legislative branch
Can call special sessions of Congress
On judicial branch:
Appoints federal judges
Can pardon federal offenders
The executive branch of government, headed by the United States President, can exert control over the legislative and judicial branches. With respect to Congress, the president can veto laws and call special legislative sessions. With regard to the judicial branch, the president appoints federal judges, and can pardon federal offenders.

9. Checks and Balances: Judicial Branch's Powers
On legislative branch:
Can declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional
On executive branch:
Can declare acts of the executive branch unconstitutional
The judicial branch of government, also known as the United States federal court system, can exert control over the legislative and executive branches. With respect to the legislative branch, the judiciary can declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. With regard to the executive branch, the judiciary can declare certain acts of the executive branch unconstitutional.

10. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
Provides that federal law is the "supreme law" of the United States
Any state or local law that directly conflicts with federal law is void
Article VI of the United States Constitution, also known as the supremacy clause, provides that federal law is the "supreme law" of the United States. As a result, any state or local law that directly conflicts with federal law is void.

11. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8)
The primary source of authority for federal regulation of business
States that the U.S. Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…"
Simultaneously empowers the federal government and restricts the power of state governments
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, also known as the commerce clause, is the primary source of authority for federal regulation of business. The commerce clause states that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…" The commerce clause simultaneously empowers the federal government, and restricts the power of state governments.

12. Taxing and Spending Powers of the Federal Government (Article I, Section 8)
Provides the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises."
Taxes imposed by Congress must be uniform across the states
The federal government can use tax revenues to provide essential services, encourage development of certain industries, discourage development of other industries
Regulatory impact of tax does not affect its constitutionality
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution establishes the taxing and spending powers of the federal government. Under Article I, Section 8, the federal government has the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises." Taxes imposed by Congress must be uniform across the states. The federal government can use tax revenues to provide essential services, encourage the development of certain industries, and discourage the development of other industries. The regulatory impact of a tax does not affect its constitutionality.

13. Other Constitutional Restrictions on Government
Privileges and immunities clause
Prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states when those nonresidents engage in ordinary and essential activities
Full faith and credit clause
States "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
Contract clause
States that government may not pass any "Law impairing the Obligation of Contract."
Other Constitutional restrictions on government include the privileges and immunities clause, the full faith and credit clause, and the contract clause. The privileges and immunities clause prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states when those nonresidents engage in ordinary and essential activities. The full faith and credit clause states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The contract clause states that government may not pass any "Law impairing the Obligation of Contract." 

14. Protections of the Bill of Rights
First ten amendments substantially affect government regulation of business
Prohibit federal infringement on individual freedoms
Fourteenth Amendment extends Bill of Rights to the states (state governments cannot infringe on rights either)
"Artificial persons": Courts may extend Bill of Rights to corporations in some cases
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, substantially affect government regulation of business. These amendments prohibit the federal government from infringing on individual freedoms. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment extends most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states, prohibiting state interference in citizens' exercise of their rights. Thus, the federal and state governments cannot deprive individuals of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. Courts apply many amendments to corporations because corporations are treated, in most cases, as "artificial persons." 

15. The First and Second Amendments
First Amendment
Protects freedom of religion, press, speech, and peaceable assembly
Ensures that citizens have the right to ask the government to redress grievances
Second Amendment
Finds that in light of the need for a well-regulated militia for security, government cannot infringe on citizens' right to bear arms
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, press, speech, and peaceable assembly. Further, it ensures that citizens have the right to ask the government to redress grievances. The Second Amendment proclaims that in light of the need for a well-regulated militia for security, the government cannot infringe on citizens' right to bear arms.

16. The Third and Fourth Amendments
Third Amendment
Provides that government cannot house soldiers in private residences during peacetime, or during war, except for provisions in the law
Fourth Amendment
Protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure
Ensures that government issues warrants only with probable cause
The Third Amendment provides that the government cannot house soldiers in private residences during peacetime or during war, except for provisions in the law. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. In order for a search to be legal, the court must first issue a warrant, particularly describing the place and/or the person to be searched. Further, the warrant must be based upon probable cause, defined as the "substantial likelihood that incriminating evidence will be found when the search is conducted."

17. The Fifth Amendment
Ensures that government does not put citizens on trial except upon indictment by a grand jury
Gives citizens the right not to testify against themselves (privilege against self-incrimination)
Prevents government from trying citizens twice for the same crime (double jeopardy)
Creates the right to due process
Provides that government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation
The Fifth Amendment ensures that the government will not subject citizens to trial, except upon indictment by a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment gives citizens the right not to testify against themselves, also known as the privilege against self-incrimination. It prevents the government from trying citizens twice for the same crime (double jeopardy). The Fifth Amendment creates the right to due process, and provides that government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation.

18. The Sixth Amendment
Provides the right to a speedy public trial with an impartial jury
Provides the right to know what criminal accusations a citizen faces
Provides the right to have witnesses both for and against the accused
Provides the right to an attorney
The Sixth Amendment provides the right to a speedy public trial with an impartial jury, the right of a citizen to know what criminal accusations he or she faces, the right to have witnesses both for and against the accused, and the right to an attorney.

19. The Seventh and Eighth Amendments
Seventh Amendment
States that in common-law suits where the monetary value exceeds $20, citizens have the right to a jury trial
Eighth Amendment
Provides that government will not set excessive bail
Prohibits government imposition of excessive fines
Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
The Seventh Amendment states that in common-law suits where the monetary value of the dispute exceeds $20, citizens have the right to a jury trial. The Eighth Amendment provides that the government will not set excessive bail, prohibits government imposition of excessive fines, and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

20. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments
Ninth Amendment
Provides that although the Bill of Rights names certain rights, such naming does not remove other rights retained by citizens
Tenth Amendment
Provides that powers that the U.S. Constitution does not give to the federal government are reserved to the states
The Ninth Amendment proclaims that although the Bill of Rights names certain rights, such naming does not remove other rights retained by citizens. The Tenth Amendment provides that powers the United States Constitution does not give to the federal government are reserved to the states.

21. The Fourteenth Amendment
Prevents states from denying "the equal protection of the laws" to any citizen
Combats discrimination, since it applies whenever government treats certain individuals differently than other similarly situated individuals
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, also known as the Equal Protection Clause, prevents states from denying "the equal protection of the laws" to any citizen. The Equal Protection Clause combats discrimination, since it applies whenever the government treats certain individuals differently than other similarly situated individuals.

22. Judicial Tests for Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment
Strict scrutiny test: Applies to suspect classifications based on race, national origin, and/or citizenship that would prevent individuals from exercising a fundamental right (such classification allowed only if necessary to promote a compelling state interest)
Intermediate scrutiny test: Applies to classifications based on gender or on the legitimacy of children (such classification allowed only if it is substantially related to an important government objective)
Rational-basis test: Applies to all other matters (such classification allowed only if it advances a legitimate government interest)
Judicial tests to determine violations of the Fourteenth Amendment include the strict scrutiny test, which applies to suspect classifications based on race, national origin, and/or citizenship that would prevent individuals from exercising a fundamental right. Such classification is allowed only if necessary to promote a compelling state interest. The intermediate scrutiny test applies to classifications based on gender or on the legitimacy of children. Such classification is allowed only if it is substantially related to an important government objective. Finally, the rational-basis test applies to all other matters, and such classification is allowed only if it advances a legitimate government interest.

23. Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 3
The annual Smallville Fair is the community event of the year. Attendance is always high, with community members enjoying the thrill rides, exhibits, and food. Lori Cuthbert, Smallville High School's principal, is there, and as she turns the corner by the Ferris wheel, she is shocked by what she sees. The school's star quarterback, senior Coy Gunner, is wearing a green T-shirt depicting a Christ-like figure smoking a marijuana joint; in large yellow letters on the front of the shirt are the words "Joints For Jesus." The back of the shirt reads: "WWJS: What Would Jesus Smoke?!"
Cuthbert immediately confronts Gunner, exclaiming, "Coy Gunner, I cannot believe you would wear such a disgusting shirt. You have offended my Christian principles and beliefs, as well as the religious beliefs of countless numbers of Smallville citizens attending this fair. Further, you have disgraced the high school. As the star quarterback of our football team, you of all people should know that you are a role model for your fellow students, as well as younger kids in the community. I will see you in my office on Monday morning at 7:30 a.m." On Monday, Gunner arrives at Cuthbert's office to discover that she has decided to suspend him for ten school days. Gunner objects, saying, "I remember in civics class that Mr. Campbell told us we have the right to free speech. I object to the suspension, and if you don't change your mind, my dad knows a good attorney who might want to speak with you."
Is the message on Gunner's shirt constitutionally protected free speech? Would rational limitations on free speech justify Cuthbert's decision to suspend Gunner? Does it matter whether the incident occurred on or off school property?
Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 3: The annual Smallville Fair is the community event of the year. Attendance is always high, with community members enjoying the thrill rides, exhibits, and food. Lori Cuthbert, Smallville High School's principal, is there, and as she turns the corner by the Ferris wheel, she is shocked by what she sees. The school's star quarterback, senior Coy Gunner, is wearing a green T-shirt depicting a Christ-like figure smoking a marijuana joint; in large yellow letters on the front of the shirt are the words "Joints For Jesus." The back of the shirt reads: "WWJS: What Would Jesus Smoke?!"
Cuthbert immediately confronts Gunner, exclaiming, "Coy Gunner, I cannot believe you would wear such a disgusting shirt. You have offended my Christian principles and beliefs, as well as the religious beliefs of countless numbers of Smallville citizens attending this fair. Further, you have disgraced the high school. As the star quarterback of our football team, you of all people should know that you are a role model for your fellow students, as well as younger kids in the community. I will see you in my office on Monday morning at 7:30 a.m." On Monday, Gunner arrives at Cuthbert's office to discover that she has decided to suspend him for ten school days. Gunner objects, saying, "I remember in civics class that Mr. Campbell told us we have the right to free speech. I object to the suspension, and if you don't change your mind, my dad knows a good attorney who might want to speak with you."
Is the message on Gunner's shirt constitutionally protected free speech? Would rational limitations on free speech justify Cuthbert's decision to suspend Gunner? Does it matter whether the incident occurred on or off school property?
[Instructor: See The Amendments to the Constitution in Chapter 5]

24. Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 4
In response to a rising tide of gun violence, the city council of Stewart, New Jersey decides to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons within its city limits. A coalition of ten gun stores within the Stewart city limits, in addition to a group of their most loyal patrons, immediately files a lawsuit, stating that the city council's move is a violation of Second Amendment rights.
Research whether U.S. cities or states have laws on the books that ban assault weapons. If you find that some do, research whether these laws have been challenged in the courts. If you find some instances, what were the outcome(s)? Do you believe that the Stewart City Council is violating the Second Amendment rights of its citizens? If so, what part(s), if not all, of the law is in violation?
Chapter 5 Hypothetical Case 4: In response to a rising tide of gun violence, the city council of Stewart, New Jersey decides to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons within its city limits. A coalition of ten gun stores within the Stewart city limits, in addition to a group of their most loyal patrons, immediately files a lawsuit, stating that the city council's move is a violation of Second Amendment rights.
Research whether U.S. cities or states have laws on the books that ban assault weapons. If you find that some do, research whether these laws have been challenged in the courts. If you find some instances, what were the outcome(s)? Do you believe that the Stewart City Council is violating the Second Amendment rights of its citizens? If so, what part(s), if not all, of the law is in violation?
[Instructor: See The Amendments to the Constitution in Chapter 5]