83

Male pronouns can be found all over the constitution. I look at Article I, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. There are currently 26 US Senators who are ...


81

My naive understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Constitution is already the supreme law and nothing can be above it, nor Congress Resolutions. If anyone acts against the Constitution, it must be already illegal. On the other hand, if someone is able to break the higher law and get away with it, he could also safely ignore common law. In the ...


68

The interstate State Compact, if it ever was implemented by states representing 270 or more electors would almost certainly be tested in court. Until it is tested in the Supreme court, nobody can authoritatively say if it is constitutional or not, The arguments would centre around whether the constitution should be read on the "plain meaning of the ...


60

A definitive interpretation of the constitution can only come from the Supreme Court in the US. The court has not ruled on this. However Supreme court justicies have given their interpretation of the law. Moreover lower courts have ruled on Federal and State laws that use "he". Their conclusions are consistent: In the interpretation of law, the ...


51

No, the House of Representatives does not have the power to overrule a Senate veto. Article I, Section 7 is quite clear that a bill needs to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to become law. The two-chamber Congress was designed as a compromise between those founders who wanted every person to have an equal say in American ...


50

Why is the constitutionality of the issue not settled by these votes? Because Senate votes don't determine constitutionality and how the Senate conducts impeachment trials and why it does so in that manner is its own business. And if these votes are insufficient to settle the issue, how can it be resolved and why hasn't this avenue been pursued? It can't ...


37

In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866), the Supreme Court ruled on the limitations of the presidential pardon: 153 The Constitution provides that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' 154 The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception ...


33

Yes... but... But muggles like you and I don't get to decide if a conflict exists, that is a matter for the Court in their role in interpreting the constitution. And the Constitution should be read as a complete document, and not a series of separate and independent clauses. There's a general philosophy in interpreting regulations: more specific rules take ...


31

Yes, Article 63 Article 63 The National People’s Congress shall have the power to remove from office the following personnel: (1) the president and the vice president of the People’s Republic of China; ... So the annual NPC can remove the President, by simple majority vote. https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw_full_text_en.pdf ...


24

First of all, none of the occasions (now three) when an impeachment has been considered by the Senate after the person impeached was no longer in office led to a vote of conviction. In each case, at least some Senators voted against conviction on the ground that the proceedings were not constitutionally authorized. If Trump, or any other official, had been ...


21

Here's a non-exhaustive list: Trump could've warned the American people about the dangers of the virus earlier, instead of downplaying the threat and constantly telling citizens it will "go away". Although to be fair, few countries took the danger seriously up until late February. His administration initially told people not to wear masks and only ...


21

Why invoke the 25th (or impeachment) so close to the end of term? to prevent the incumbent president from causing any further harm (in the eyes of those calling for it) to make a point that the incumbent president's behavior has (again? finally?) crossed a (another?) line (in the eyes of those calling for it) in the hope that future presidents and those ...


19

There is no time limit but it can be included in the amendment itself. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-5/ratification It has been accepted that Congress may, in proposing an amendment, set a reasonable time limit for its ratification. Beginning with the Eighteenth Amendment, save for the Nineteenth, Congress has included language in ...


18

Article II of the US Constitution currently prohibits an elector from voting for two people from his home state. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. Some background from History.com: Under the original system, electors did ...


17

It is mostly a statement. When Congress does something, it is generally reported in the news. Congress passing declarations like this is a way for the members of Congress to make a big deal about an opinion the governing party holds very strongly. By formalizing this opinion (even an opinion as basic as "The Constitution exists"), they are able to ...


17

The ex post facto clause in the constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to only apply to legislation that would penalize past behavior in a criminal sense. As taxes aren't a criminal punishment, their retroactive application doesn't fall under this definition. The Congressional Research Service has published an ...


15

They had no intention of following any constitution other than the Führerprinzip, and writing that into a legal code would have disturbed conservatives who did support them. The minutes of the Wannsee conference showcase this mindset, even if the conference was not about having (or not having) a constitution -- there were nazis who were ignoring the rule of ...


13

Why Is The U.S. Federal Court Status Quo The Way It Is? The short answer is that this is path dependent. The status quo was put in place in 1789 before anyone had extensive experience with large non-monarchical governments, and lifetime appointments seemed like a good idea at the time. It is much harder to amend the constitution of the United States than it ...


13

The answer is probably not as definitive as you'd like. By some academic analyses (almost consensus, one could say) "women had no status in the Constitution of 1787" While the constitution used some gender-neutral language, early interpenetration in that direction e.g. voting rights for women in New Jersey were reversed by 1807. (This a bit O/T, ...


13

The term for Senators is six years. Only about one-third of the seats have terms that expire on January 3 of odd years. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to a seat previously held by Johnny Isakson. The term for that seat does not expire until January 3, 2023. Loeffler will hold that seat until the runoff is decided. Either Loeffler will continue or Raphael ...


13

I want to know why there would be any political advantage to this The advantage would be that they would present themselves as being opposed to an attempted coup. Depending on their constituency, that could help them in future elections. why would they not let Trump leave office with the recent event a real black mark on his record instead of causing new ...


13

Short answer: because courts (and the US Supreme Court in particular) rarely rule on hypotheticals, and nobody has ever been successfully impeached while out of office and then challenged that decision. Until that happens, the matter will remain undecided. Slightly longer, assuming that it had been challenged and ruled constitutional, all that would change ...


12

When we look to the framer's of the constitution, the main debate was whether the pardon prerogative should extend to "treason" (it does) or "impeachment" (it doesn't). Hamilton writes about the pardon in paper 74: Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible ...


12

Yes. There is perhaps no limit on the power of the states to amend the constitution. The process is this: 2/3 of the legistures of the states apply to Congress calling for an amendatory convention. Congress shall call a convention (there is no time scale specified in the constitution, common law suggests that there should not be undue delay) The ...


11

Completely constitutional. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress


11

There are a number of inaccuracies in the reporting. First, what Trump signed was a series of presidential memorandums, not executive orders. The practical difference between the two doesn't really matter in this case, though. Second, what you describe is actually two different memorandums. The first, deferring the payment of payroll taxes, is probably ...


11

It seems to me it is rather clear that Congress enforces the 14th Amendment as per section 5. It is not for a judge to enforce but for Congress solely of its enforcement. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Source Supporting Resources The Fourteenth ...


10

This is a highly speculative question — it lays out scenarios that are well off the beaten path of practice and precedent — but I think I can safely say the following. First, as I understand it, in most legal contexts it is generally left to the judge to determine whether he or she can effectively try a case. When judges receive a case it is their case; an ...


10

Sure. This has actually happened already, when DC was given the ability to appoint electors by the 23th Amendment: Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible