By Mark Rawls

The Constitution is a source of political faith to many people [1]; it is almost revered in some quarters. So why would anyone suggest changing it, not just slightly, but substantially altering its provisions? In fact, a number of academics and political activists have lately suggested just that, arguing that a constitutional convention ought to be called, as provided by Article V of the Constitution. Just last September Harvard Law School hosted the “Conference on the Constitutional Convention”, which brought together advocates of a convention from both the left and right of the political spectrum. Both Lawrence Lessig’s left-leaning Fix Congress First and Mark Meckler’s right-leaning Tea Party Patriots co-sponsored the event . The idea of a constitutional convention has also garnered support from other quarters. The Tennessee Law Review devoted its Spring 2011 issue to constitutional convention scholarship. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia proposed a number of amendments and advocated for a convention in his 2007 book A More Perfect Constitution. In 2006 Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas published Our Undemocratic Constitution arguing for the calling of a constitutional convention. The proponents of calling a convention come from all manner of political ideology, as do the opponents of a convention. But just what is an Article V constitutional convention? Why should it be called? What would it do? I will explore a number of these issues associated with such a convention in an upcoming series of blog posts. To start out, I will define an Article V convention and discuss several concerns surrounding it. Read more…

By Mark Rawls

Recently several scholars have been discussing Resolution VI and what implications it might have towards theories of constitutional interpretation. They refer to Resolution VI under the Virginia plan, the plan drafted largely by James Madison and presented by Edmund Randolph (both of Virginia) at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The resolution, as amended and ratified by the convention, states that Congress shall have the power,

“[T]o legislate in all Cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those Cases in which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the Exercise of Individual Legislation.” (See here.)

Although the convention adopted this language, which seems to give the federal government considerable power, the language does not appear in the Constitution that they eventually drafted. So what relevance, if any, does it have for modern constitutional interpretation? To answer this question, it is necessary to first explain a few of the innumerable methods of constitutional interpretation found in legal scholarship. Read more…

By Andrew Lindsey

The right of trial by jury is a cherished and essential feature of American law. Though the institution of the jury originated in England, the framers of the Constitution were very keen on incorporating it into our own legal system. Ironically, even before the establishment of our constitutional republic, the denial “of the benefit of Trial by Jury” to the American colonies was an explicit complaint lodged against England in the Declaration of Independence. After the revolutionary war, one of the main concerns the states expressed towards ratifying the proposed articles of the Constitution was the lack of an express right to a jury trial in civil cases. As a result, the 7^th Amendment was proposed and ultimately adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. Read more…

By Andrew Lindsey

It is a rare American who does not have an opinion about the meaning of our Constitution. From the most informal settings of household discussion to the highest venues of public debate, constitutional controversies are continuously contemplated and confronted in our society. This is something that sets us apart from many countries, and is something that our founding fathers would be proud of. They believed that a politically engaged electorate was necessary to keep America alive and free, and they encouraged perpetual scrutiny of our founding document. Most people care about our Constitution because they are aware that, ultimately, they can change it. But out of the entire framework of fundamental powers, protections, and procedures designed by the founders, were there any provisions that they deemed too important to change? Read more…

Join us for our 2011 Constitution Day Program, “Why Civic Education is Essential to a Healthy Democracy.”

Featuring:

William E. (Bill) White, Ph.D., Royce R. & Kathryn M. Baker Vice President

Productions, Publications, and Learning Ventures, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Meg Heubeck, Director of Instruction, Youth Leadership Initiative, University of Virginia Center for Politics

Kelly Carmichael Booz, Director of Civic Education, Center for the Constitution at James Madisonʼs Montpelier

Julie Silverbrook, Director, Constitutional Conversations Program, William & Mary Law School

Moderator: Dr. Beverly Thurston, Coordinator

Location:

Williamsburg Library Theater

515 Scotland Street

Thursday, September 15th at 6:30 p.m.

Download the program here: 2011 Constitution Day Program

See our events page for more information, or download the 2011-2012_Adult_Program Schedule or the High School Program Schedule in PDF form. We look forward to seeing you there!

By K. Michele Hunter

A few weeks ago, jury selection began for the involuntary manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson’s physician, Dr. Conrad Murray. The Los Angeles Times reported that out of a potential jury pool of 147 LA citizens who indicated they are able to serve on the two-month trial, only three reported that they knew nothing about the case—due, no doubt, to extensive media coverage of the pop-star’s death in 2009 and the accusation of Dr. Murray that followed. This means that the search to find 12 of Murray’s impartial peers in time for the speedy trial he requested, invoking his Sixth Amendment right, is far from over. Read more…

By Tim Huffstutter

Yasir Afifi is an American citizen and a college student in California. Last fall, Afifi took his car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic called him back to take a look at the underside of the vehicle because of a strange discovery. A wire was poking out of the right rear wheel well. The mechanic removed a device, but neither man knew what it was. Afifi posted pictures of it online and asked for help. A couple of days later, six agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) showed up at his apartment door, lights blazing, and demanded the return of their property. The strange device was a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device; the FBI had been surreptitiously following Afifi for anywhere from three to six months. Read more about Afifi here. Read more…

By Anonymous

GPS tracking devices are commonplace in today’s society, but they aren’t just for helping drivers get from one place to another anymore. Police departments across the country are using the devices to catch criminals and solve crimes. The advantages are substantial: they’re cheap, they’re accurate and have a long battery life. But most importantly, they’re effective. In Ohio, officers tracked the car owned by a suspect in a series of armed robberies and were able to catch the suspects after they committed yet another robbery. In Virginia, there were a series of 11 unsolved cases of sexual assault in 6 months. Police had a suspect and were able to monitor his car via GPS to establish ‘hunting behavior.’ This eventually allowed them to physically follow him and intervene as he attacked another woman. The court was clear that the GPS tracking was just one piece of the puzzle, with eyewitness police evidence serving as the basis for conviction. While it may be just one piece, it is an important one that should not be denied to our law enforcement officers. Read about the Virginia Court of Appeals’ decision here. Read more…