Informal Amendments How can the Constitution be informally

  • Slides: 12
Download presentation
Informal Amendments How can the Constitution be informally changed? How can the Constitution be

Informal Amendments How can the Constitution be informally changed? How can the Constitution be informally changed over time?

Do Now: Recall our conversations from last week. Name two ways that the Constitution

Do Now: Recall our conversations from last week. Name two ways that the Constitution can be formally changed.

Formal Changes Phase 1: An amendment can be proposed by two-thirds of both houses

Formal Changes Phase 1: An amendment can be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or. . . By two-thirds of state legislaturesrequesting Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. Phase 2: An amendment can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in threefourths of the states.

Where can we find this in the Constitution? Two-party system Abortion rights Electors have

Where can we find this in the Constitution? Two-party system Abortion rights Electors have to follow state electorate Agenda Setting in the Media President is the driving force in policymaking The answer is nowhere! The developments could occur because the Constitution changes informally as well as formally.

Methods of Informal Change - Judicial Interpretation (Marbury v. Madison) - Legal, Social, Cultural

Methods of Informal Change - Judicial Interpretation (Marbury v. Madison) - Legal, Social, Cultural Change - Executive Order

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court Case over federal appointments (including William Marbury) made

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court Case over federal appointments (including William Marbury) made by President John Adams before his term ended. Thomas Jefferson, the new president, refused to recognize the appointment of Marbury. At the direction of Jefferson, Madison (Secretary of State) refused to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury sued Madison, and the Supreme Court took the case.

The Outcome Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which

The Outcome Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which spelled out the practice of delivering such commissions for judges and justices of the peace, was unconstitutional because it the gave the Supreme Court authority that was denied it by Article III of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court said, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was illegal and not to be followed. This was the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law because it was unconstitutional. It was the beginning of the practice of "judicial review. "

Marriage Equality - DOMA 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996

Marriage Equality - DOMA 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. "Section Three" of the act prevented the federal government from recognizing any marriages between same-sex couples.

United States v. Windsor Edith Windsor was widowed when her wife Thea Spyer died

United States v. Windsor Edith Windsor was widowed when her wife Thea Spyer died in 2009. Windsor and Spyer were married in 2007 in Canada after being partners for 40 years. Windsor was forced to pay $363, 053 in estate tax on Spyer’s estate, which she argues she would not have to pay if she had been Spyer’s husband.

How did it get to the Supreme Court? The Southern District Court of New

How did it get to the Supreme Court? The Southern District Court of New York ruled in June that DOMA’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman lacked a rational basis, and ordered damages of $363, 053 paid to Windsor. In October, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, with a panel ruling 2 -1 for Windsor. Then the Supreme Court considered it…

BLAG When US Attorney General Eric Holder refused to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA

BLAG When US Attorney General Eric Holder refused to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA a group called BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) intervened to uphold Section 3. Speaker of the House John Boehner ordered BLAG to work with House Office of General Counsel to fight the case on behalf of the prosecution (US!) in the Supreme Court.

Results Section 3 of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" has been declared unconstitutional

Results Section 3 of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" has been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Committed same-sex couples who are legally married in their own states can now receive federal protections: - Social Security - Veterans' benefits - Health insurance - Retirement savings