HEARING RESPONSES
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT LEVEL
Unit VI, District Question #1 - May 2014
Why does the United States’ commitment to the rule of law appeal to other peoples?
P2. Empirically, rule of law also reflects the belief that there are individual human rights that should be protected and untouchable to any government. James McClellan wrote that rule of law is “A government of laws, not of men.” Rule of law ensures the legal protection of natural and political rights.
P3. The concept of rule of law dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215. When King John signed the Magna Carta, he guaranteed the barons’ rights would protected by the law. The adoption of this document spread rule of law consistently through English politics and jurisprudence, and later led to the adoption of rule of law in America.
P4. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was also influenced by the natural rights philosophers of the Enlightenment. Under the rule of King George III, the inalienable rights that the colonists valued were violated. In response, the Declaration embodied the idea that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that it is the government’s duty to secure these rights.
P5 The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution of 1787 upholds that the Constitution is the highest form of law in the land, and that federal laws supersedes state law. This is essential in guaranteeing that individual liberties are held above any piece of state legislation. The Constitution is the highest law, and reflects the principle of justice that rule of law embodies.
P6. An example of how rule of law is executed in America can be seen in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 57, James Madison defends the establishment of the House of Representatives, claiming that it demonstrates the equality in republican government which promotes merit and rule of law. Additionally, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that, “the complete independence of the courts is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”
P7.The Bill of Rights of 1791 represents the culmination of rule of law. These ten amendments contain fundamental freedoms encompassing the idea that rights should be protected by law and not by man. The Bill of Rights protects these individual rights by enshrining them as law.
P8. Because rule of man does not protect justice, in America, although we have leaders, the country is governed by law. Because of this, natural rights can be guaranteed. As seen in US v. Nixon (1974), even the president is not above the law. Rule of law is also effective in America because of its sheer size. With such a large country, everyone’s rights can be protected by law and not by a single ruler. Yet it is not this way in countries like China, Syria, Russia, and North Korea.
P9. The American principle of rule of law can be seen as inspirational to other countries. The French Constitution of 1791, Polish Constitution of 1791, and Latin American constitutions included similarities to the American Constitution.
P10. On the other hand, recent studies and legal writings are raising questions about the effectiveness of our Constitution. Other countries, such as Canada, constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women and people with disabilities, and allow for affirmative action. But the American influence of the rule of law cannot be ignored. Today, republics are more common globally, and more countries are recognizing the effectiveness of rule of law. Rule of law is inevitably spreading, and for good reason.
P11. Thank you for your time, we are now ready and eager to discuss our response with you.
Unit VI, District Question #2
What do you think are the greatest challenges of American citizenship today?
P2. One reason immigration is so challenging is because we define citizenship primarily by jus soli and partially by jus sanguinis. Most countries define it solely by jus sanguinis, making it easy to determine who is a citizen. The national government sets the rules for how to become a citizen, and determines policies for deportation and other punishments for undocumented residents. Some states, like Arizona, try to deal directly with issues that undocumented residents bring to their states, but in Arizona v. U.S., the Supreme Court rejected key parts of an Arizona law to deter illegal immigration.
P3. These issues have been confronted with laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Immigration Act of 1924. Most recently, the now-fallen “Gang of Eight” attempted to create a comprehensive reform bill that would change many immigration and naturalization policies. On June 27, 2013 the Senate voted 68-32 to pass this sweeping reform. However, the bill must overcome major hurdles in the House of Representatives to become law. (need to update this part).
P4. Our constitutional democracy was founded on the idea of political participation from its citizens. American citizens have numerous avenues for affecting change within the politics of our government, such as writing letters to representatives, giving speeches, and forming marches and petitions to express our opinions.
P5. At the state and local levels, initiatives and referenda also expand citizens’ political abilities. In Michigan, citizens have used the initiative process to suggest legislation to amend collective bargaining policies in the state, and to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
P6. Federalism produces a unique set of challenges and problems for American citizens. Being a citizen of a state and the whole country means that laws can be confusing and even contradictory. For example, if a person is a gay or lesbian citizen of Vermont, their state law allows them to legally marry. But while the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Windsor granted federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples, contradictory laws still exist for citizens of many states. Without federal protections guaranteeing equal rights for all same sex couples, states are still free to determine their own marriage laws, which continue to contradict other states’.
P7. However, federalism can also be beneficial for citizens. States serve as laboratories of democracy. When Massachusetts adopted a near universal health care program, its success attracted the attention of other states and the federal government. The national Affordable Care Act closely mirrors the Massachusetts law. As it is being implemented, some arguments over whether it will be successful or not are based on statistics from states that have put similar laws into use, such as California.
P8. In conclusion, a constitutional democracy depends on the active participation of its citizens to bring about policy change. In our form of government, the more contact citizens can have with those responsible for decision-making, the better one’s chances at implementing change. In the U.S.’ federal form of government, we have many elected officials on all levels of government from whom to choose. We can try to convince them to reform health care, or to change immigration policy. If they fail to act, we can vote to replace them with others more sympathetic to the needs of the nation.
P9. Thank you for your time. We are now ready to answer your questions.
Unit VI, District Question #3
What do you think are the best ways to achieve constitutional change?
P2. Professor Larry Sabato continues with an explanation with which we agree: “A society that stops trying to invent the better mousetrap will cede the spark of innovation - a key to political and economic prosperity - to other nations… A governing class that grows too comfortable with the status quo that often benefits it will be the ruination of the common good.”
P3. Thomas Jefferson’s letter to James Madison in 1789 included these words: “Every constitution… naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right”. We must disagree with the literal interpretation of this statement; however, we interpret it as meaning that our laws and constitutions, as Jefferson wrote in 1816 in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind”.
P4. Both formal methods of amending the Constitution are founded from federalism. Under Article V, by a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress may propose an amendment and specify whether the mandated three-quarters of the states are to ratify it in their legislatures or by special state conventions. The other amendment procedure is for the legislatures in two-thirds of the states to call a national convention to freely amend the Constitution. No such convention has ever been called.
P5. In addition to these formal methods, the American government also uses many informal methods for changing the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court has been called "a constitutional convention in continuous session." The nation's courts interpret and apply the Constitution as they see fit, as per Marbury v. Madison.
P6. Of the two methods prescribed in the Constitution, we prefer the convention method, despite critics’ fears of a runaway convention. More than three thousand amendments have been proposed in Congress over the last forty years and only six have been sent to the states. Congress has proved to be a graveyard for constitutional reform.
P7. We believe that the state legislatures are more responsive to grassroots movements for change. After all, they have been acting as laboratories for democracy for years.
P8. Many states have mandatory referenda on holding new conventions at regular intervals. The Michigan Constitution requires that a question on whether to hold a constitutional convention is automatically placed on the ballot every 16 years. Michigan’s constitution has been amended more than thirty times since 1963.
P9. We do not deny that constitutional amendments have helped this country become “a more perfect union.” The ten amendments in the Bill of Rights certainly have acted to protect individual rights. The post-Civil War Amendments began the process of ridding this nation of the curse of slavery. More people than ever can now vote thanks to the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments, and flaws in the structure of government have been corrected by the 12th, 16th, 17th and 25th Amendments.
P10. In conclusion, we believe that President Abraham Lincoln put it best in his first inaugural address in 1861: “To me, the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others”.
P11. Thank you for your time. We are now eager to answer your questions.
Why does the United States’ commitment to the rule of law appeal to other peoples?
- How would you explain the meaning of the rule of law?
- How do America’s founding documents express the nation’s commitment to the rule of law?
P2. Empirically, rule of law also reflects the belief that there are individual human rights that should be protected and untouchable to any government. James McClellan wrote that rule of law is “A government of laws, not of men.” Rule of law ensures the legal protection of natural and political rights.
P3. The concept of rule of law dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215. When King John signed the Magna Carta, he guaranteed the barons’ rights would protected by the law. The adoption of this document spread rule of law consistently through English politics and jurisprudence, and later led to the adoption of rule of law in America.
P4. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was also influenced by the natural rights philosophers of the Enlightenment. Under the rule of King George III, the inalienable rights that the colonists valued were violated. In response, the Declaration embodied the idea that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that it is the government’s duty to secure these rights.
P5 The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution of 1787 upholds that the Constitution is the highest form of law in the land, and that federal laws supersedes state law. This is essential in guaranteeing that individual liberties are held above any piece of state legislation. The Constitution is the highest law, and reflects the principle of justice that rule of law embodies.
P6. An example of how rule of law is executed in America can be seen in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 57, James Madison defends the establishment of the House of Representatives, claiming that it demonstrates the equality in republican government which promotes merit and rule of law. Additionally, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that, “the complete independence of the courts is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”
P7.The Bill of Rights of 1791 represents the culmination of rule of law. These ten amendments contain fundamental freedoms encompassing the idea that rights should be protected by law and not by man. The Bill of Rights protects these individual rights by enshrining them as law.
P8. Because rule of man does not protect justice, in America, although we have leaders, the country is governed by law. Because of this, natural rights can be guaranteed. As seen in US v. Nixon (1974), even the president is not above the law. Rule of law is also effective in America because of its sheer size. With such a large country, everyone’s rights can be protected by law and not by a single ruler. Yet it is not this way in countries like China, Syria, Russia, and North Korea.
P9. The American principle of rule of law can be seen as inspirational to other countries. The French Constitution of 1791, Polish Constitution of 1791, and Latin American constitutions included similarities to the American Constitution.
P10. On the other hand, recent studies and legal writings are raising questions about the effectiveness of our Constitution. Other countries, such as Canada, constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women and people with disabilities, and allow for affirmative action. But the American influence of the rule of law cannot be ignored. Today, republics are more common globally, and more countries are recognizing the effectiveness of rule of law. Rule of law is inevitably spreading, and for good reason.
P11. Thank you for your time, we are now ready and eager to discuss our response with you.
Unit VI, District Question #2
What do you think are the greatest challenges of American citizenship today?
- Why and how does constitutional democracy in the United States depend on the active participation of its citizens?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages, if any, of being a citizen of both the United States and the state in which you reside?
P2. One reason immigration is so challenging is because we define citizenship primarily by jus soli and partially by jus sanguinis. Most countries define it solely by jus sanguinis, making it easy to determine who is a citizen. The national government sets the rules for how to become a citizen, and determines policies for deportation and other punishments for undocumented residents. Some states, like Arizona, try to deal directly with issues that undocumented residents bring to their states, but in Arizona v. U.S., the Supreme Court rejected key parts of an Arizona law to deter illegal immigration.
P3. These issues have been confronted with laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Immigration Act of 1924. Most recently, the now-fallen “Gang of Eight” attempted to create a comprehensive reform bill that would change many immigration and naturalization policies. On June 27, 2013 the Senate voted 68-32 to pass this sweeping reform. However, the bill must overcome major hurdles in the House of Representatives to become law. (need to update this part).
P4. Our constitutional democracy was founded on the idea of political participation from its citizens. American citizens have numerous avenues for affecting change within the politics of our government, such as writing letters to representatives, giving speeches, and forming marches and petitions to express our opinions.
P5. At the state and local levels, initiatives and referenda also expand citizens’ political abilities. In Michigan, citizens have used the initiative process to suggest legislation to amend collective bargaining policies in the state, and to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
P6. Federalism produces a unique set of challenges and problems for American citizens. Being a citizen of a state and the whole country means that laws can be confusing and even contradictory. For example, if a person is a gay or lesbian citizen of Vermont, their state law allows them to legally marry. But while the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Windsor granted federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples, contradictory laws still exist for citizens of many states. Without federal protections guaranteeing equal rights for all same sex couples, states are still free to determine their own marriage laws, which continue to contradict other states’.
P7. However, federalism can also be beneficial for citizens. States serve as laboratories of democracy. When Massachusetts adopted a near universal health care program, its success attracted the attention of other states and the federal government. The national Affordable Care Act closely mirrors the Massachusetts law. As it is being implemented, some arguments over whether it will be successful or not are based on statistics from states that have put similar laws into use, such as California.
P8. In conclusion, a constitutional democracy depends on the active participation of its citizens to bring about policy change. In our form of government, the more contact citizens can have with those responsible for decision-making, the better one’s chances at implementing change. In the U.S.’ federal form of government, we have many elected officials on all levels of government from whom to choose. We can try to convince them to reform health care, or to change immigration policy. If they fail to act, we can vote to replace them with others more sympathetic to the needs of the nation.
P9. Thank you for your time. We are now ready to answer your questions.
Unit VI, District Question #3
What do you think are the best ways to achieve constitutional change?
- Thomas Jefferson argued that the Constitution should be revised every generation. The founders provided instead for an amendment process to take place only if and when revisions may be deemed necessary Which method do you think is better? Why?
- In what ways, if any, have constitutional amendments helped the United States become “a more perfect union”? Explain.
P2. Professor Larry Sabato continues with an explanation with which we agree: “A society that stops trying to invent the better mousetrap will cede the spark of innovation - a key to political and economic prosperity - to other nations… A governing class that grows too comfortable with the status quo that often benefits it will be the ruination of the common good.”
P3. Thomas Jefferson’s letter to James Madison in 1789 included these words: “Every constitution… naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right”. We must disagree with the literal interpretation of this statement; however, we interpret it as meaning that our laws and constitutions, as Jefferson wrote in 1816 in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind”.
P4. Both formal methods of amending the Constitution are founded from federalism. Under Article V, by a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress may propose an amendment and specify whether the mandated three-quarters of the states are to ratify it in their legislatures or by special state conventions. The other amendment procedure is for the legislatures in two-thirds of the states to call a national convention to freely amend the Constitution. No such convention has ever been called.
P5. In addition to these formal methods, the American government also uses many informal methods for changing the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court has been called "a constitutional convention in continuous session." The nation's courts interpret and apply the Constitution as they see fit, as per Marbury v. Madison.
P6. Of the two methods prescribed in the Constitution, we prefer the convention method, despite critics’ fears of a runaway convention. More than three thousand amendments have been proposed in Congress over the last forty years and only six have been sent to the states. Congress has proved to be a graveyard for constitutional reform.
P7. We believe that the state legislatures are more responsive to grassroots movements for change. After all, they have been acting as laboratories for democracy for years.
P8. Many states have mandatory referenda on holding new conventions at regular intervals. The Michigan Constitution requires that a question on whether to hold a constitutional convention is automatically placed on the ballot every 16 years. Michigan’s constitution has been amended more than thirty times since 1963.
P9. We do not deny that constitutional amendments have helped this country become “a more perfect union.” The ten amendments in the Bill of Rights certainly have acted to protect individual rights. The post-Civil War Amendments began the process of ridding this nation of the curse of slavery. More people than ever can now vote thanks to the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments, and flaws in the structure of government have been corrected by the 12th, 16th, 17th and 25th Amendments.
P10. In conclusion, we believe that President Abraham Lincoln put it best in his first inaugural address in 1861: “To me, the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others”.
P11. Thank you for your time. We are now eager to answer your questions.