Constitutional Adherence – Purple Values Organization

Constitutional Adherence

The Constitution of the United States holds a revered position as the foundational framework of our government. Unfortunately, it frequently becomes a focal point for intense debates, contributing to a significant portion of the nation’s political divisions. The Constitution itself isn’t the cause of this division; rather, it’s the various and sometimes flawed interpretations that give rise to differing perspectives.

The escalation of these differences into heated disputes is fueled by misconceptions about the Constitution’s provisions and intentions. Political ideologies and affiliations often lead to selective readings of the Constitution. This can involve emphasizing specific clauses while minimizing others to bolster arguments or reinterpreting its meaning entirely. Unfortunately, this cherry-picking approach can distort the true essence of the Constitution and ultimately foster division.

Constitutional misunderstandings originate from multiple sources:

Lack of Knowledge: Citizens’ general lack of familiarity with the Constitution contributes to misconceptions, misinterpretations, and polarization.

Manipulation for Political Gain: Politicians, pundits, and organizations may twist constitutional interpretations to advance their own agendas.

Avoidance of Tough Decisions: Politicians sometimes sidestep difficult issues to avoid unpopular stances that might affect their re-election prospects. This results in deferring responsibilities to the courts to address matters they’re hesitant to confront.

Challenges of Modernity: The Constitution was designed centuries ago and applying its principles to the complexities of the present, shaped by evolving societal norms and technological advancements, can be intricate.

The Framers of the Constitution intended for the Constitution to adapt to the “Challenges of Modernity” (to be a “Living Document”, adaptable to the evolving needs of society). The Amendment Process, elaborated in Article V, was included in the Constitution to facilitate this adaptability. This process allows the Constitution to align with the changing requirements of a dynamic society.

Understanding of the Constitution is crucial in comprehending and overcoming many of our polarizing divides. Purple Values aims to provide an education grounded in well-researched interpretations that transcend partisan biases, playing a pivotal role in fostering constitutional awareness and bridging polarizing divisions.

We need your help! We need you to sign-up, donate, and become a constitutionally educated voter.

Constitutional Education – A Work-in-Progress from here down

Why do we have a constitution?

The need for the Constitution arose from the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, the document which laid out the initial governmental structure of the United States prior to the Constitution’s adoption. The problems with the Articles of Confederation highlighted the need for a stronger and more effective central government, ultimately leading to the Constitutional Convention and the drafting of the United States Constitution.

Consequently, the new nation faced the looming threat of economic collapse, compounded by the central government’s inability to effectively mediate conflicts among the states. Disagreements over matters such as territorial disputes, military pensions, taxation policies, and trade practices posed significant challenges that had the potential to fracture the unity of the country. Challenges stemming from the Articles of Confederation included:

Weak Central Government: The central government lacked the power to enforce its decisions. The national government had only Congress; there was no executive branch and no judicial branch, making it nearly impossible to carry out laws or ensure compliance.
Limited Taxation Authority: The Articles did not grant the central government the authority to directly tax citizens, making it difficult to raise funds for essential functions. Congress had no power to tax, it could only request money from the states, borrow from foreign governments and sell land. The states rarely funded the national government. As a result, the government had difficulty paying its debts or funding its activities.
No Regulation of Commerce: The central government couldn’t regulate interstate or international trade, leading to economic conflicts and trade disputes among states. Each state could negotiate its own trade agreements with foreign nations. These agreements could undermine the interests of the country and the actions of Congress. Tariff wars between states were common. Each state set policies based on its own self-interest, states often imposed tariffs on products produced in other states and taxed foreign products coming into their ports destined for other states.
No National Currency: Lack of a unified currency led to currency variations between states, hindering economic stability and trade.
Lack of Military Power: The central government had trouble raising a military force or responding swiftly to security threats. In order to raise an army or navy, resources would have to be request from the states. States could refuse the request for resources.
Unworkable System: 1) Each state had equal representation in Congress regardless of size or population, which sometimes led to unequal influence. Each State sent a delegation of between two and seven members to the Congress, and they voted as a bloc with each State getting one vote. This added to an already cumbersome process. 2) Passing laws required the approval 9 of the 13 states. Amending the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of all 13 states. The process of legislating was paralyzed and ineffectual.
Poor Attendance: Delegate attendance of Congress sessions was poor. It was difficult to establish a quorum, pass treaties, and conduct the business of government. Why show up if the system does not work?
States’ Sovereignty: States often acted as individual sovereign entities, pursuing their own interests without considering the broader national welfare.
Ineffective Diplomacy: The central government struggled to represent the nation’s interests effectively in foreign affairs.
Financial Instability: The inability to address war debts and stabilize the economy led to financial instability and mistrust.
Inadequate Dispute Resolution: The central government lacked the power to mediate disputes between states, causing tensions to escalate.
Limited Accountability: Without a system of checks and balances, there was no mechanism to hold government officials accountable for their actions.

In May 1787, with the country on the brink of disaster, delegates from 12 of the states gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation, by mid-June they decided to completely redesign the government and began working on a new constitution for the United States of America.

What is the purpose of the Constitution?

The purpose of the Constitution was to create a national government powerful enough to be effective, while simultaneously limiting the central government’s power. The Constitution distributes and limits the power of five groups; 1) the House of Representatives, 2) the Senate (together the Legislative Branch), 3) the Executive Branch, 4) the Judicial Branch, and 5) the states.

Understanding the failures of the Articles of Confederation (outlined in the previous question), adds context to the meaning of the Preamble of the Constitution. It expresses the aspirations of the framers to create a better system of governance. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Let’s break it down:

In Order to form a more perfect union – fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation and unify the country
Establish justice – create a fair national system for resolving legal issues
Insure domestic tranquility – resolve internal issues such as interstate commerce and state border disputes
Promote the general welfare – act in a manner that benefits the common interests of all the states and people of the United States, in contrast to the actions under the Articles of Confederation where the states each acted in their own self-interest
Provide for the common defence – allow for a national army and navy
Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity – create an enduring system of national government that functions properly and ensures that the rights of its citizens cannot be taken away by government or majority rule.

What were the impediments to creating the Constitution?

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 faced several significant impediments and challenges as the delegates worked to create the United States Constitution. These obstacles reflected the diverse interests, regional differences, and differing visions for the new government among the delegates. Here are some of the key impediments that the convention had to overcome:

Representation and State Sovereignty: Delegates from smaller states were concerned about being overshadowed by larger states in a new government. This led to debates about representation in the legislature, with the larger states favoring proportional representation and the smaller states pushing for equal representation. The Great Compromise, which created a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives based on population and a Senate with equal representation for each state, resolved this issue.
Slavery and Three-Fifths Compromise: The problem of slavery was a significant obstacle during the Constitutional Convention. However, forceful attempts to abolish slavery would likely have posed a serious threat to the success of the Convention. Northern states were increasingly moving towards abolition, motivated by moral and social considerations. Conversely, Southern states heavily relied on slavery as a crucial aspect of their economies, particularly in the realm of agriculture. The Three-Fifths Compromise was devised to address the question of how enslaved individuals would be counted for representation and taxation purposes. The decision to postpone addressing the slavery issue until 1808 was part of the broader compromises made during the Constitutional Convention. This postponement aimed to secure the support of Southern states and ensure the successful formation of a new federal government.
Commerce and Trade: States had differing economic interests, which led to debates over trade regulations and tariffs. The Commerce Compromise allowed Congress to regulate commerce, but it required a two-thirds majority in the Senate to pass any navigation acts that would affect the states.
Executive Power: The delegates debated the role and power of the executive branch. Some feared a strong executive would lead to tyranny, while others believed in a robust executive authority. The compromise resulted in the creation of the presidency with limited but clearly defined powers.
Checks and Balances: Balancing power between the branches of government was a challenge. Delegates debated the separation of powers and how to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. The final Constitution established a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
Ratification Process: Even after the Constitution was drafted, it needed to be ratified by at least nine of the thirteen states to become effective. Some states were reluctant to give up their sovereignty and feared a strong central government. The Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, played a crucial role in persuading the states to ratify the Constitution.
Bill of Rights: Many delegates believed that the Constitution needed to include a bill of rights to protect individual liberties from potential government abuse. The absence of a bill of rights was a point of contention, and its addition was crucial to securing the ratification of several states.

Despite these challenges, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention managed to navigate the complexities and reach compromises that laid the foundation for the new American government. Their efforts resulted in a document that has endured for over two centuries and remains a cornerstone of the US political system.

Why didn’t the delegates to the Constitutional Convention directly address slavery in the Constitution?

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 faced a delicate and complex challenge when it came to addressing slavery in the Constitution. There were several reasons why the convention did not directly confront the issue of slavery:

Compromise to Achieve Union: The convention’s primary goal was to create a new framework for the United States government that could effectively replace the weak Articles of Confederation. The framers recognized that achieving consensus among the states was crucial to forming a strong federal government. Slavery was a deeply divisive issue, and tackling it directly risked undermining the fragile unity necessary to form the new Constitution.
Economic and Regional Interests: Slavery had become deeply entrenched in the Southern states’ economy and way of life. Many Southern delegates were staunch defenders of slavery, and they would have likely walked out of the convention if slavery were to be abolished or significantly curtailed. The delegates had to consider the economic interests of the Southern states and the potential consequences of alienating them.
Fear of a Failed Convention: The delegates were aware of the risks associated with failing to reach an agreement at the convention. A complete breakdown of the convention could lead to the continuation of the weak Articles of Confederation or even the dissolution of the Union. To prevent this, the framers needed to find common ground on a wide range of issues, and tackling the contentious issue of slavery might have jeopardized this effort.
Prioritizing the Structure of Government: The focus of the convention was primarily on designing the structure of the federal government and determining the powers and roles of each branch. The framers needed to address questions of representation, taxation, and the division of powers between the federal and state governments. These issues were already complex, and addressing slavery would have added another layer of complexity to the proceedings.
Leaving Room for Future Reforms: Some delegates believed that addressing slavery directly might have caused Southern states to reject the Constitution altogether. Instead, they hoped that by creating a flexible framework for government, future generations would have the opportunity to address the issue of slavery as the nation evolved.

In essence, the framers of the Constitution faced a delicate balancing act between the need to create a functional government and the deeply entrenched interests and divisions surrounding slavery. While the Constitution did not directly address slavery, its provisions and compromises laid the groundwork for future debates and actions regarding the institution.

What were the consequences of not directly abolishing slavery in the Constitution?

The decision not to directly abolish slavery in the United States Constitution had profound and lasting consequences for the nation. While the framers of the Constitution sought to balance the interests of different states and maintain unity, the omission of clear provisions regarding slavery set the stage for ongoing conflicts and struggles over the institution. Here are some of the key consequences:

Human Toll: The most tragic consequence of not directly addressing slavery in the Constitution was the immense human toll it exacted. Enslaved individuals endured unimaginable suffering, exploitation, and dehumanization. Families were torn apart through forced separations, and generations were subjected to physical and psychological abuse. The legacy of this brutal institution continues to affect Black communities and American society to this day.
Preservation and Expansion of Slavery: By not addressing slavery directly, the Constitution effectively allowed the institution of slavery to continue. This omission provided Southern states with the legal framework to maintain and expand their slaveholding economies. The lack of a clear stance on slavery allowed it to persist as a deeply entrenched social and economic institution in the South.
Continued Conflict over Representation: The Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, gave Southern states more political power than they would have had without this provision. This skewed representation led to constant tension between Northern and Southern states in Congress and contributed to sectional conflicts.
Expansion into New Territories: The absence of clear guidelines on slavery’s status in new territories acquired by the United States fueled debates over whether these territories should allow or prohibit slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the subsequent compromises were attempts to manage these debates, but they only temporarily mitigated the tensions.
Deterioration of Political Compromise: As the nation grew and new states entered the Union, the issue of whether these states would allow or ban slavery became increasingly contentious. The failure to directly address slavery in the Constitution contributed to the breakdown of political compromises, which further heightened sectional divisions.
Rise of Abolitionist Movement: The omission of clear anti-slavery provisions in the Constitution inspired and energized the abolitionist movement. Abolitionists argued that the Constitution’s silence on slavery was a moral failing and called for an end to the institution. This movement gained momentum and eventually played a role in the lead-up to the Civil War.
Civil War: The inability to resolve the issue of slavery through political compromise eventually culminated in the Civil War. The deep-rooted tensions between the North and the South over slavery, combined with other economic and political factors, led to the secession of Southern states and the outbreak of the war.

In essence, the decision not to directly address slavery in the Constitution prolonged human suffering, allowed the institution to persist, fueled regional conflicts, and contributed to a long and arduous struggle for its eventual abolition. The legacy of these consequences continued to shape American society and politics long after the Constitution was ratified.

How is the Constitution designed to be changed?

The Constitution of the United States is deliberately designed to be changed through a formal process known as the amendment process. This mechanism allows the Constitution to remain relevant and adaptable to the evolving needs of a changing society while maintaining the fundamental principles that form the bedrock of the nation. The process for amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V and involves two primary stages: proposal and ratification.

Proposal Stage:

Congressional Proposal: An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is the most common method of proposing amendments and reflects the collective decision-making of the elected representatives.
Convention Proposal: Alternatively, an amendment can be proposed by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. This method has never been used, as all amendments have been proposed by Congress so far.

Ratification Stage:

State Legislature Ratification: Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths (or 38) of the state legislatures. This is the traditional method of ratification and demonstrates the collective agreement of a significant majority of states.
State Convention Ratification: States also have the option to ratify an amendment through state conventions specially convened for this purpose. This method bypasses state legislatures and allows direct input from the people. It has been used for only one amendment, the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

The requirement for a supermajority at both the proposal and ratification stages underscores the Constitution’s intentional stability and the significance of any change to its foundational principles. This process also ensures that any amendment has broad-based support across different regions and political ideologies before becoming part of the Constitution.

The Framers of the Constitution deliberately set a rigorous amendment process to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. While they recognized the need for change over time, they also wanted to prevent hasty alterations driven by temporary emotions or political shifts. This deliberate approach reflects their belief in the Constitution as a living document, capable of evolving while upholding its core principles.

Since the Constitution’s adoption, it has been amended 27 times, showcasing its capacity to evolve in response to societal progress and changing perspectives. The first 10 times the Constitution was amended are referred to as the Bill of Rights. Notably, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, was added shortly after the Constitution’s ratification to ensure the protection of liberties.

Why do we have a Bill of Rights?

When the Constitution was initially drafted, some states and individuals were apprehensive about the new federal government having too much power and potentially infringing upon citizens’ rights. The lack of a Bill of Rights became an obstacle to ratifying the Constitution.

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists played pivotal roles in the creation and ratification of the Constitution and the eventual inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists’ support for a strong central government and their engagement in the ratification debate led to compromises that addressed some of the Anti-Federalists’ concerns. The Anti-Federalists’ advocacy for individual rights and explicit protections led to the addition of the Bill of Rights, ensuring that fundamental freedoms would be safeguarded in the new government. Together, their interactions shaped the final form of the Constitution and laid the foundation for the American system of governance.

Key reasons for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights include:

Ratification Concerns: During the ratification process of the Constitution, some states expressed reservations about the lack of explicit protections for individual rights. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights helped to secure support for the Constitution from these states.
Balancing Strong Central Government: The Bill of Rights helped to strike a balance between creating a strong central government and protecting individual and state rights.
Protection of Individual Liberties: The Bill of Rights guarantees specific rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to bear arms, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. These rights were considered essential for citizens’ personal autonomy and protection against potential government abuse.
Assuring Citizen Participation: Protecting rights such as freedom of speech and assembly allows citizens to voice their opinions and participate in the democratic process without fear of reprisal from the federal government.
Limitation of Government Power: The Bill of Rights sets clear limits on the authority of the government, preventing it from infringing upon citizens’ rights. It serves as a check on government overreach and ensures that the government operates within the confines of the Constitution.
Preventing Tyranny: The Bill of Rights serves as a safeguard against potential tyranny by preventing the government from suppressing dissent, infringing upon religious beliefs, or violating citizens’ privacy without due process.
Preservation of a Just Legal System: The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of individuals within the legal system, such as the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to legal representation. These provisions help to ensure a fair and just legal process.
Protecting Precedent: Many of the colonies and states had their own declarations of rights or constitutions that included protections for individual liberties. Including a Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution reflected this historical precedent.

The Bill of Rights is a foundational component of the United States’ commitment to individual freedoms, limited government, and the protection of citizens’ rights. It ensures that the government remains accountable to the people it serves and upholds the principles of a democratic society.

When ratified, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; it did not and was not intended to apply to the states. For more than 130 years the Supreme Court held the position: the federal government could not infringe on these rights, however, states were allowed to restrict those rights, subject to the limitations of their own state constitutions. Beginning in the 1920s, through the process of incorporation, the Supreme Court began incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states. This has led to

Side note: James Madison’s original Bill of Rights contained 20 amendments; the House of Representatives revised the amendments down to 17; the Senate made further revisions and 12 amendments emerged and were passed by Congress; and 10 of the 12 were ratified by the states. In 1992, the 27th Amendment was passed; it was one of the original 12 ratified by Congress. (FYI: the First Amendment was not the original proposed First Amendment. Additionally, it is not listed first because it was the most important; it is first because it was the first amendment passed. The original proposed first amendment was never ratified by the states. It lays out a formula for determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.)

How has incorporation of the Bill of Rights led to divisions within the country?

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights, which refers to the process of applying the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, has divisions within the country. Here’s how:

Political Polarization: Incorporation-related cases often become politically charged, with different political groups interpreting rights and their application based on their own ideologies. The debates are often framed in a way that reinforces existing divisions leading to disagreements about how certain rights should be applied in various situations. For example, issues related to freedom of speech, religious freedom, and gun rights have sparked divisive debates when considering how these rights interact with state laws and regulations.
Federal vs. State Authority: The incorporation of the Bill of Rights raises questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Some argue that incorporation diminishes state sovereignty by subjecting state laws to federal constitutional standards. This tension between state autonomy and federal oversight can create divisions over the proper scope of government authority.
State Autonomy Concerns: Some view incorporation as eroding the traditional role of states in regulating matters within their own borders. This can create tensions between those who advocate for stronger state autonomy and those who emphasize the importance of consistent national standards for individual rights.
Cultural and Regional Differences: The United States is culturally diverse, and different regions may have varying views on individual rights and liberties. Incorporation can lead to clashes between more conservative or traditionalist regions and more liberal or progressive ones. For example, debates over issues like gun control, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedom can become contentious due to differing regional values.
Complex Legal Cases: The incorporation process adds complexity to legal cases involving constitutional rights. Cases that involve both federal and state law can become convoluted, and the outcomes of these cases can lead to significant disagreements among legal experts and the general public.
Perception of Judicial Activism: Critics of incorporation sometimes argue that courts are engaging in judicial activism by imposing federal standards on state laws. Public perception can lead to accusations of unelected judges making decisions that affect local governance without proper democratic input.
Role of Courts in Social Change: The incorporation process often requires the courts to address evolving social issues. This places the courts at the forefront of social change, rather than the state and federal legislatures. In recent years, the court’s role, in setting the pace and direction of societal transformation, has led to an erosion of confidence in the judicial system among the American people.

While Incorporation has had both positive and negative impacts on society, current public perception is that unelected judges making are making political decisions that affect local governance without proper democratic input. This has eroded confidence in our judicial system.

What are the Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances?

Checks and balances are a fundamental principle of the United States government, designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful and to ensure that each branch can limit the actions of the other branches. This system also extends to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Here’s a brief overview of the checks and balances:

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in the U.S. government that divides governmental responsibilities among different branches to prevent the concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances. This division involves three main branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Legislative Branch (Congress): This branch is solely responsible for creating laws. It comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives. Congress drafts, debates, and passes legislation, controls the budget, and exercises oversight over the other branches.
Executive Branch (President): The executive branch solely enforces and administers laws. The President, as the head of this branch, carries out laws passed by Congress, manages foreign relations, and serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The executive branch also includes various agencies and departments that implement policies.
Judicial Branch (Federal Courts): The judicial branch solely interprets laws and ensures their constitutionality. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, hear cases, apply the law to specific situations, and resolve disputes. The judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the Constitution.

Checks and balances are mechanisms that allow each branch of government to monitor and limit the actions of the other branches, preventing any single branch from becoming too powerful. This system ensures accountability, protects citizens’ rights, and promotes collaboration. Examples include:

Veto Power: The President can veto bills passed by Congress. However, Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Judicial Review: Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have the authority to review laws and executive actions for constitutionality. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional, it can be invalidated.
Confirmation and Appointments: The Senate confirms presidential appointments to federal courts, the Cabinet, and other key positions. This process ensures qualified and competent individuals are chosen.
Impeachment: Congress has the power to impeach and remove federal officials, including the President, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment proceedings are initiated in the House of Representatives and require a trial in the Senate.
Congressional Oversight: Congress monitors the activities of the executive branch through hearings, investigations, and inquiries. This oversight ensures transparency and prevents abuse of power.
Amendment Process: Congress, in conjunction with the states, can propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution, allowing for fundamental changes to the structure of the government.

State Involvement: States play a crucial role in the separation of powers and checks and balances through:

Amending the Constitution: An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or if two-thirds of the state legislatures request a Constitutional Convention. The proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or by conventions held in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
Federalism: The division of powers between the federal government and states ensures that both levels of government have specific areas of authority. States retain powers not granted to the federal government.
State Laws: States have their own legislatures, governors, and judicial systems, allowing them to pass and enforce laws that pertain to local matters.
Interstate Compacts: States can enter agreements, known as interstate compacts, with the consent of Congress. These compacts address issues that span multiple states, such as water resources or transportation.

The system of checks and balances ensures that no single branch of the federal government becomes too powerful and that the interests and rights of both citizens and states are protected. This complex network of interactions helps maintain a balance of power and prevents the consolidation of authority in any one entity.

What powers were given to Congress?

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the United States Congress. These powers are often referred to as the “enumerated powers” or “delegated powers.” Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, has the power to:

Tax and Spend: Congress has the authority to levy and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This power includes the ability to raise revenue for the federal government’s operations and programs.
Borrow Money: Congress can borrow money on behalf of the United States government, which allows the government to issue bonds and other debt instruments to finance its activities.
Regulate Commerce: Congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This power is significant for regulating interstate and international trade.
Establish Naturalization and Bankruptcy Laws: Congress can establish rules for becoming a citizen of the United States (naturalization) and laws related to bankruptcy.
Coin Money and Regulate its Value and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures: Congress has the authority to coin money, set its value, and regulate the currency in circulation. Congress is empowered to establish a consistent system of measurements for weights and measures throughout the United States to ensure uniformity and accuracy in trade, commerce, and scientific endeavors. Generally, the value of foreign currencies in relation to each other and to the U.S. dollar is determined by international foreign exchange (forex) markets.
Punish Counterfeiting: The Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Establish Post Offices and Post Roads: Congress can establish and maintain post offices and postal roads to facilitate communication and transportation across the country.
Grant Patents and Copyrights: Congress can provide protection for intellectual property by granting patents to inventors and copyrights to authors for a limited time.
Constitute Tribunals Inferior to the Supreme Court: Congress has the authority to establish and organize federal courts below the level of the Supreme Court.
Punish Crimes Committed on the High Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations: Congress has the authority to establish laws and penalties related to certain criminal activities that occur in international waters (high seas) and offenses that violate international law.
Declare War: Congress has the authority to declare war, which means it holds the decision-making power regarding whether the United States engages in armed conflict with other nations.
Raise and Support Armies: Congress can raise and maintain armies, providing for the nation’s defense. The Constitution also specifies that appropriations for the military must be made for no longer than two years.
Provide and Maintain a Navy: Congress has the authority to establish and maintain a navy to ensure the country’s security and defense.
Make Rules for the Military: Congress can make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces, which includes setting up a system of military justice.
Call Forth the Militia: Congress can call forth the militia (now known as the National Guard) to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Provide for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining the Militia: Congress can make laws regarding the organization, training, and discipline of the militia, which are state-based military forces.
Exercise Exclusive Legislation over the District of Columbia: Congress has authority over the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia, and can make laws for its governance.
Make All Laws Necessary and Proper: Often referred to as the “Elastic Clause” or the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” this provision grants Congress the authority to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.

Checks on legislative power include:

Bicameral Structure: The bicameral structure of Congress, with the House of Representatives and the Senate, creates an internal check, as both chambers must pass identical versions of legislation before it becomes law.
Executive Veto: The President can veto legislation passed by Congress. While Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the veto power acts as a check on Congress’s ability to enact laws.
Judicial Review: The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have the authority to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down.
States’ Role in Constitutional Amendments: Proposed amendments to the Constitution require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions, providing states with a check on changes to the Constitution.
Public Opinion and Elections: Members of Congress are ultimately accountable to the people through elections. Voters can choose to re-elect or replace representatives based on their performance and policy positions.

These checks ensure that the legislative branch operates within the framework of the Constitution and does not become too powerful. They promote accountability, balance of power, and protection of individual rights.

What powers does the Constitution specifically deny to Congress?

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution outlines certain powers that are denied to Congress, specifically in relation to limitations on its legislative authority. Here are the powers that are explicitly denied to Congress in this section:

Ex Post Facto Laws: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” This means Congress cannot pass laws that retroactively criminalize actions that were not illegal when they were committed (ex post facto laws) or declare a person or group guilty of a crime without a trial (bills of attainder).
Suspend Habeas Corpus (except in cases of rebellion or invasion): “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas corpus is the right to challenge one’s detention before a court. Congress can only suspend this right in cases of rebellion or invasion, and even then, only when public safety necessitates it.
Direct Taxes without Apportionment: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Congress cannot levy direct taxes without apportioning them among the states based on their respective populations.
Export Taxes: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Congress is prohibited from imposing taxes or duties on articles that are exported from any state.
No Preference of Ports: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” Congress cannot enact regulations that give preference to the ports of one state over those of another, and it cannot require vessels traveling between states to enter, clear, or pay duties in a state other than their destination.
Money Drawn from the Treasury: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Congress can only spend money from the federal treasury if there is a specific law appropriating those funds for a particular purpose.

These limitations on Congress’s powers outlined in Article I, Section 9 are important checks and balances designed to protect individual rights, prevent abuse of power, and ensure the fair and equitable functioning of the government.

What congressional powers were given solely to the House of Representatives?

The U.S. Constitution grants specific powers and responsibilities to the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the United States Congress. Here are some powers and functions that are exclusively given to the House of Representatives:

Initiating Revenue Bills: All bills related to raising revenue (tax bills) must originate in the House of Representatives, as outlined in Article I, Section 7. While the Senate can propose amendments or reject these bills, the House has the sole authority to introduce legislation that involves taxation and government spending.
Impeachment Initiatives: The House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate impeachment proceedings against federal officials, including the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Impeachment is the process of bringing charges of misconduct or abuse of power, which can lead to a trial in the Senate.
Initiating Constitutional Amendments: While both the House and the Senate play roles in the process of amending the Constitution, amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds majority in either chamber. The House has the sole power to initiate proposed amendments, which then require ratification by the states.
Choosing the President in Case of Electoral College Tie: If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College for the office of President, the House of Representatives has the authority to choose the President from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Each state delegation in the House casts one vote. The Twelfth Amendment specifies that a quorum of two-thirds of the states is required for the House of Representatives to proceed with a contingent election for the President in case of an Electoral College deadlock.

What congressional powers were given solely to the U.S. Senate?

The U.S. Constitution grants specific powers and responsibilities to the Senate, the upper chamber of the United States Congress. Here are some powers and functions that are exclusively given to the Senate:

Confirmation of Presidential Appointments: The Senate has the authority to confirm or reject presidential nominations for key positions, such as federal judges, Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other high-ranking officials. This is outlined in the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2.
Treaty Ratification: The Senate must approve international treaties negotiated by the President before they can be ratified and become binding on the United States. Treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate for ratification, as specified in Article II, Section 2.
Impeachment Trials: The House of Representatives has the power to impeach federal officials, but the Senate holds the sole responsibility for conducting impeachment trials. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial when the President is being impeached. The Senate can also disqualify the individual from holding future federal offices.
Advice and Consent: The Senate’s role in providing “advice and consent” is crucial in various matters, such as treaties and appointments. The Senate’s approval is necessary for these actions to take effect.
Choosing the Vice President in Case of Electoral College Tie: In the event of a tie in the Electoral College vote for the President or Vice President, the Senate has the authority to choose the Vice President from the two candidates with the most electoral votes. This provision is outlined in the Twelfth Amendment.

What powers were given to the Executive Branch?

The Constitution specifically enumerates several powers to the Executive Branch, which is headed by the President of the United States. These powers are outlined in Article II of the Constitution. Here are the key enumerated powers of the Executive Branch:

Commander in Chief: The President is designated as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, giving them authority over the nation’s armed forces. However, the power to declare war lies with Congress.
Executive Powers: The President Is authorized to require principal officers of executive departments to provide written opinions on the duties of their offices. The President can issue executive orders, which are directives that carry the force of law and guide how federal agencies operate. However, these orders must be consistent with existing laws and the Constitution.
Appointment Power: The President has the authority to appoint certain high-ranking officials in the federal government, including federal judges, ambassadors, and members of the President’s Cabinet. These appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.
Treaty Negotiation and Ratification: The President has the power to negotiate and enter into treaties with foreign nations. However, to become binding, a treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.
State of the Union Address: The President is required to periodically address Congress and deliver the State of the Union, providing updates on the nation’s condition and recommending legislative measures.
Receiving Ambassadors and Diplomats: The President serves as the official representative of the United States in its foreign relations and has the authority to receive ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives from foreign nations.
Veto Power: The President has the power to veto bills passed by Congress. If the President vetoes a bill, it can still become law if Congress overrides the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Pardoning Power: The President can grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment.
Faithful Execution of Laws: The President is constitutionally bound to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. This means that the President must enforce and implement laws as intended by Congress.
Check Writing Power: Through the Treasury Department, the President has the power to write checks pursuant to appropriation laws.
Chief Diplomat: The President has the power to conduct foreign relations, negotiate and enter into executive agreements with other nations (which do not require Senate ratification), and represent the United States on the international stage.
Chief Executive: The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, responsible for managing and overseeing federal agencies and departments.
Powers as Chief Legislator: While not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the President plays a role in the legislative process by proposing legislation and influencing Congress through their legislative agenda.

These enumerated powers, along with the principle of checks and balances, define the scope of the President’s authority and responsibilities within the Executive Branch. The Constitution also reserves powers to the other branches of government, ensuring a system of shared governance and preventing the concentration of power in any one branch.

These checks on executive power are essential in the United States government to prevent the President from becoming too powerful and to maintain a system of checks and shared power among. Here are some key checks on executive power:

Congressional Oversight: Congress has the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch, including investigations and hearings, to ensure that the President and executive agencies are carrying out their responsibilities faithfully and in accordance with the law.
Impeachment: The Constitution grants Congress the power of impeachment, allowing the House of Representatives to bring charges against the President and other federal officials for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate then conducts the impeachment trial and can remove the President from office with a two-thirds majority vote.
Power of the Purse: While the President proposes the federal budget, Congress ultimately controls the purse strings. Congress must approve spending bills and has the power to withhold funds or limit the President’s spending priorities.
Presidential Veto Override: If the President vetoes a bill passed by Congress, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This check ensures that Congress can pass legislation even if the President disagrees.
Advice and Consent: The President has the authority to make appointments to federal offices, including federal judges and executive branch officials. However, these appointments must be confirmed by the Senate through the “Advice and Consent” process.
Treaty Ratification: While the President has the power to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, they cannot be ratified without the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
Judicial Review: The Judicial Branch, specifically the Supreme Court, has the power of judicial review, allowing it to determine the constitutionality of executive actions and orders. If the Court finds an action or order unconstitutional, it can strike it down.
Executive Orders and Actions: Although the President can issue executive orders and take executive actions, these actions are subject to judicial review and can be challenged in the courts if they exceed the President’s authority or violate the Constitution.
War Powers Act: While the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, the War Powers Act limits the President’s ability to commit U.S. armed forces to military action without congressional approval. The President must inform Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to combat, and if the conflict lasts for more than 60 days, Congress must authorize the continuation of military action.
Term Limits: The Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution limits the President to two terms in office, ensuring a peaceful transition of power and preventing the concentration of power in a single individual.

What powers were given to the Judicial Branch?

The Constitution of the United States grants several key powers to the Judicial Branch, which is primarily responsible for interpreting the law and ensuring its application. The primary powers of the Judicial Branch are as follows:

Interpretation of Laws: The Judicial Branch, particularly the federal courts, has the authority to interpret the laws enacted by the legislative branch. This power allows them to determine the constitutionality of laws and ensure they align with the principles set forth in the Constitution.
Judicial Review: The concept of judicial review, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was established by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). This power enables the federal courts to review and potentially invalidate actions of the executive and legislative branches that they find to be unconstitutional.
Settling Disputes: The Judicial Branch serves as the final arbiter in legal disputes, including cases involving individuals, organizations, or even states. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, disputes between states, and other matters specified in the Constitution.
Adjudicating Federal Law: Federal courts have the authority to interpret and apply federal laws, including those passed by Congress and those that deal with issues within the federal government’s jurisdiction.
Preserving Individual Rights: The Judicial Branch protects individual rights and liberties by ensuring that laws and actions by the government do not infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, the courts handle cases related to freedom of speech, religion, and privacy.
Adjudicating Cases Involving States and Foreign Entities: In addition to handling cases involving individuals and organizations, federal courts can also adjudicate disputes involving states or foreign entities under certain circumstances.
Pardoning Power Limitation: While the President has the power to grant pardons for federal offenses, this power does not extend to cases involving impeachment, as stated in the Constitution. The Judicial Branch cannot overturn impeachment decisions made by the legislative branch.

It is essential to understand that the powers of the Judicial Branch are balanced by the powers of the other two branches of government—the Legislative and Executive Branches. This system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure the government’s proper functioning and protection of individual rights.

What are the two main philosophies of constitutional interpretation?

The two main philosophies of constitutional interpretation are Judicial Pragmatism and Judicial Originalism.

Judicial Pragmatism: Judicial Pragmatism is a philosophy of constitutional interpretation that emphasizes the need for flexibility and adaptability in applying the Constitution to modern circumstances. Pragmatist judges prioritize the broader context of time, place, and circumstance when interpreting the Constitution. They believe that the Constitution should be a “living document” that can evolve and be reinterpreted to address contemporary challenges and changing societal values. Pragmatists often consider the consequences and practical implications of their decisions, aiming to strike a fair balance between competing rights and interests. This approach allows for more dynamic and responsive constitutional interpretation, potentially leading to progressive changes in the law.
Judicial Originalism: Judicial Originalism is a philosophy of constitutional interpretation that seeks to adhere strictly to the original intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution. Originalist judges rely on historical sources, legal documentation, and the understanding of the Constitution at the time of its adoption to ascertain its meaning. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the framers’ original intent, and any changes to its meaning should be made through the formal amendment process outlined in Article V. Originalists view the Constitution as a fixed and stable document, with its meaning remaining constant over time. This approach is aimed at preserving the Constitution’s core principles and providing predictability and consistency in constitutional interpretation.

These two philosophies represent opposing views on how the Constitution should be interpreted and applied in contemporary legal decisions. Judicial Pragmatism advocates for a more flexible and evolving interpretation, while Judicial Originalism emphasizes adhering to the Constitution’s original intent as understood by its framers. The debate between these two approaches continues to shape the course of constitutional interpretation in the United States.

What is the difference between Judicial Pragmatism and Judicial Originalism?

Judicial Pragmatism and Judicial Originalism are two distinct and contrasting approaches to interpreting the Constitution and guiding legal decisions within the United States. Each philosophy offers unique perspectives on the role of the judiciary, the process of constitutional interpretation, and the impact on the rule of law.

1. Approach to Constitutional Interpretation:

Judicial Pragmatism: Pragmatist judges prioritize the need for flexibility and adaptability in constitutional interpretation. They consider the broader context of time, place, and circumstance, aiming to strike a fair balance between competing rights and interests. Pragmatists may reinterpret the Constitution’s meaning to address modern challenges and align with evolving societal values.
Judicial Originalism: Originalist judges emphasize adhering to the original intent of the Constitution’s framers. They rely on historical sources and legal documentation to understand the Constitution’s meaning as it was understood at the time of its adoption. Originalists advocate for a more strict and consistent application of the Constitution, with any changes to its meaning requiring formal amendments through the democratic process.

2. Stability and Predictability:

Judicial Pragmatism: Critics argue that pragmatism’s emphasis on adaptability and reinterpretation may lead to inconsistency and uncertainty in the law. Decisions can vary based on individual judges’ perspectives, potentially undermining the stability and predictability of the legal system.
Judicial Originalism: Originalism is often praised for providing stability and predictability in constitutional interpretation. By adhering to the framers’ original intent, originalist decisions are expected to be more consistent and less influenced by changing societal values.

3. Role of the Judiciary:

Judicial Pragmatism: Pragmatists may be more inclined to engage in judicial activism, using their authority to advance social progress and address perceived injustices. They see the judiciary as an essential player in shaping public policy and promoting social change.
Judicial Originalism: Originalists generally advocate for a more limited role of the judiciary, believing that major societal changes should be achieved through the democratic process. They are cautious about judicial activism and prefer leaving policy decisions to the legislative and executive branches.

4. Flexibility vs. Tradition:

Judicial Pragmatism: Pragmatism is open to adapting the Constitution’s meaning to respond to modern complexities and emerging rights and liberties. This approach allows for a dynamic and evolving legal system that can address contemporary challenges.
Judicial Originalism: Originalism’s emphasis on adhering to the framers’ original intent may be seen as rigid, potentially limiting the Constitution’s applicability to modern issues. Critics argue that this approach may not adequately protect evolving rights and liberties.

In summary, the debate between Judicial Pragmatism and Judicial Originalism reflects the tension between adaptability and tradition in constitutional interpretation. Pragmatism seeks to address current challenges and promote social progress through reinterpretation, while Originalism emphasizes stability and consistency by staying true to the framers’ original intent. Both philosophies have their advocates and critics, and the ongoing dialogue continues to shape the evolution of the American legal system.

What is Purple Values’ philosophy on constitutional interpretation?

Because of judicial activism’s contribution to partisanship and polarization in our country, Purple Values favors an Originalist approach, where possible. Activists on both the right and the left are guilty of pursuing outcomes requiring judicial activism. Some of the key problems with activism on the Supreme Court are as follows:

Legitimacy and Democratic Process: Judicial activism can be seen as a departure from the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society. By using their authority to shape public policy, activist judges may be accused of bypassing the democratic process and imposing their personal beliefs on the public. This raises questions about the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions and whether unelected judges should play such a significant role in shaping public policy.
Partisanship and Polarization: Judicial activism can exacerbate political polarization and partisanship. Rather than working through the democratic process, activists will seek to change the law through the courts, leading to further divisions in society.
Separation of Powers: The doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle in the US government, intended to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Judicial activism can blur the lines between the branches, as the Court may end up engaging in policy-making rather than interpreting and applying the law. This can disrupt the balance of power between the branches and undermine the intended system of checks and balances.
Rule of Law: The rule of law is the principle that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to and accountable to the law. Judicial activism may lead to unpredictable and inconsistent rulings, as judges prioritize their policy preferences over consistent legal reasoning. This can erode public trust in the Court and the notion of equal treatment under the law.
Impact on Stability: The Court’s decisions have a significant and lasting impact on society. Activist rulings that radically depart from longstanding legal principles can lead to uncertainty and instability in the law. This unpredictability can have adverse effects on businesses, individuals, and the legal system as a whole.
Long-Term Consequences: While some may view activism as a way to address urgent social issues, its short-term gains may have unintended long-term consequences. Decisions made based on current social and political climates may not withstand future shifts in public sentiment or societal values.
Judicial Independence: Activism can call into question the principle of judicial independence, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. Judges should ideally decide cases impartially based on the law and the Constitution, rather than being swayed by external pressures or political considerations.

Balancing the role of the judiciary with the democratic process, the rule of law, and the need for stability in the legal system is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and respect for the principles that underpin the US government. While judicial activism may be pursued with the intention of promoting social progress or addressing perceived injustices, it is not without serious long-term consequences. The positive outcomes, that are based on weak a constitutional foundation, should be amended into the Constitution before they are overturned by future courts.

What powers are denied to the states by the Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution outlines powers denied to the states in order to establish a balance between federal and state governments. These principles are laid out primarily in Article I, Section 10.

Powers Denied to the States:

Treaties and Alliances: States are prohibited from entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations with foreign nations (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Coining Money: States cannot coin money or emit bills of credit; they cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Impairing Contracts: States cannot pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder: States cannot pass ex post facto laws or bills of attainder (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Titles of Nobility: States cannot grant titles of nobility (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Import and Export Taxes: States cannot lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress (Article I, Section 10, Clause 2).
Interstate Compacts: States cannot enter into agreements or compacts with other states or foreign powers without the consent of Congress (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).
War and Armies: States cannot keep troops or ships of war in peacetime without the consent of Congress (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).
States’ Treaties: States cannot engage in treaties, alliances, or confederations without the consent of Congress (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).

Why did the Constitution not grant specific powers to the states?

The Constitution of the United States was designed with a balance of powers between the federal government and the states. While the Constitution does enumerate specific powers granted to the federal government and outlines certain powers denied to the states, it deliberately leaves a significant portion of governance to the states. This approach was based on several key principles and historical context:

Respecting State Sovereignty: The framers of the Constitution were aware that the newly formed United States was a collection of individual states with their own identities, cultures, and interests. Many states were concerned about losing their sovereignty to a strong central government. Granting specific powers to the states preserved their autonomy and allowed them to address local concerns without constant interference from the federal government.
Protection Against Tyranny: The framers were wary of creating a government that could become too powerful and oppressive. By leaving a range of powers to the states, they aimed to prevent the concentration of authority and avoid the risk of a single, overbearing entity.
Flexibility: The framers understood that specific powers might evolve or change over time as circumstances changed. By not listing every possible power of the states, they allowed for flexibility to address unforeseen challenges and developments.
States as Laboratories: The framers believed that states could serve as laboratories for experimentation in governance. The states’ latitude, to enact and test different policies, allowed for the exploration of diverse approaches to address local issues.
Compromise: The Constitutional Convention was marked by negotiations and compromises. Balancing the interests of large and small states, as well as those with varying economic systems and concerns, was a complex task. Leaving some powers to the states helped achieve a consensus on the Constitution’s adoption.
Avoiding Centralized Authority: The framers aimed to avoid replicating the issues experienced under the Articles of Confederation, where a weak central government led to inefficiencies and conflicts. Granting specific powers to the federal government while leaving other powers to the states struck a balance between central authority and state autonomy.
Protection of Individual Rights: The focus on individual rights and liberties also played a role. By not explicitly enumerating every state power, the Constitution ensured that individual rights were not accidentally limited.

In summary, the framers of the U.S. Constitution deliberately chose not to grant a comprehensive list of specific powers to the states in order to preserve state sovereignty, prevent potential tyranny, allow for flexibility, and address the diverse interests and concerns of the states. The lack of specific enumerated powers being granted to the states led to the addition of the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

What is the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments?

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments address related concepts. However, they have distinct purposes that emphasize different aspects of the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the individual citizens. Here’s a breakdown of the purposes of each amendment:

Ninth Amendment:

Purpose: The primary purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to ensure that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution does not imply that the people possess only those rights. It emphasizes that individuals have a broader array of rights beyond those explicitly listed.
Protection of Unenumerated Rights: The Ninth Amendment is intended to safeguard unenumerated rights that individuals inherently possess. It prevents the government from infringing on these unlisted rights simply because they are not specifically mentioned.
Individual Autonomy: The amendment reinforces the concept of individual autonomy and the idea that the government’s powers are not all-encompassing. It underscores that the people’s rights are not confined to those expressly written in the Constitution.
Limiting Government: The Ninth Amendment serves as a check on government power by reminding both lawmakers and the judiciary that individuals’ rights extend beyond the confines of the explicitly listed rights.

Tenth Amendment:

Purpose: The primary purpose of the Tenth Amendment is to delineate the division of powers between the federal government and the states. It reinforces the principle of federalism and preserves the states’ sovereignty and authority over matters not specifically delegated to the federal government.
Reserved Powers: The Tenth Amendment asserts that any powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. This ensures that the states retain a significant sphere of governance.
Balancing Federal and State Powers: The amendment is designed to prevent an imbalance of power, with either the federal government or the states becoming overly dominant. It ensures that the federal government operates within its designated scope, while states continue to govern in areas not explicitly under federal jurisdiction.

In summary, the Ninth Amendment safeguards the unenumerated rights of individuals and prevents the government from neglecting or infringing upon those rights. The Tenth Amendment preserves state sovereignty and the balance of powers by explicitly reserving powers to the states that are not explicitly given to the federal government. Together, these amendments reinforce the principles of individual liberty, federalism, and limited government.