An Introduction to Constitutional Law in the US

Constitutional law stands as one of the defining facets of the American legal system, encompassing the fundamental rules and principles governing power, rights and liberties in the United States. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously pronounced in Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The evolution of constitutional jurisprudence and doctrines throughout American history reveals ongoing struggles to balance stability with adaptation, and continuity with social change. Debates around constitutional interpretation go to the heart of legality and identity in the American polity.

This paper provides an introductory overview of key aspects of US constitutional law and development. First, it examines the basic structure and provisions of the US Constitution. Second, it outlines principles and doctrines of constitutional interpretation. Third, it analyzes the power of judicial review. Fourth, it discusses the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Finally, it assesses notable trends and controversies in modern constitutional law. Grasping the complexities and contestations underlying American constitutionalism is essential to unpacking public law and governance.

Origins and Structure of the US Constitution

Adopted in 1789 after extensive debate, the US Constitution reflects seminal compromises and political bargains among the Framers shaping American federalism. It endures as the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Analyzing its architecture lays groundwork for constitutional discourse.

Constitutional Convention and Ratification

Disputes under the loosely constructed Articles of Confederation led states to convene the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposing modifications, but it ultimately drafted an entirely new Constitution (1). Provisions like separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances responded to weaknesses perceived under the Articles. However, ratification proved controversial, only prevailing once the Federalist Papers successfully made the case and the Bill of Rights was promised to safeguard liberties (2).

Structure of Articles, Amendments and Institutions

The written Constitution lays out enumerated powers across articles creating the branches of government, separation of powers, individual rights in the amendments, and defining federalism. The Preamble sets out the mission of “securing the Blessings of Liberty.” Key institutional structures include Congress’s legislative authority under Article I, the presidency in Article II, and the judiciary in Article III. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land (3).

There are 27 amendments, 10 of which constitute the Bill of Rights protecting liberties like speech, religion and due process. Only 33 words address judicial authority, but courts embraced broad interpretive powers, particularly after Marbury v. Madison enshrined judicial review. The Constitution’s bifurcation between limited enumerated federal powers and reserved state powers defines US federalism (4).

Adapting to Changing Circumstances

Despite extensive specificity, the Framers intentionally left room for adaptation to unforeseeable contexts through mechanisms like the Necessary and Proper Clause allowing implied powers and flexibility in interpretation (5). This has enabled pragmatic adaption, but fueled debates on adherence to original intent versus contemporary reinterpretation. The tensions between constitutional permanence and contextual responsiveness suffuse US constitutional law.

Principles and Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Controversies about interpreting the Constitution date to the earliest days of the republic. Divisions focus on the extent judges should adhere to “original intent” of provisions versus dynamically adapting meaning to current societal context. Theories of interpretation shape constitutional rulings and frameworks.

Textualism and Original Intent

Textualist approaches emphasize strict fidelity to the explicit words and original intent of constitutional provisions (6). From this originalist perspective, judges should avoid inferences straying beyond the text and decipher meaning based on how the Framers understood concepts. Unenumerated rights claims and broad interpretations raise concerns of judicial activism.

Living Constitutionalism

In contrast, living constitutionalism argues meanings evolve based on changing social values and eras (7). The Constitution establishes durable principles about liberty and governance, but flexible interpretation allows adapting principles to contemporary public understandings and needs rather than binding society to bygone milieus. Open-ended clauses imply adapting functions.

Pragmatism and Common Law Constitutionalism

Other frameworks highlight pragmatism and common law traditions shaping constitutional adjudication incrementally through precedents versus abstract theory (8). In determining constitutionality, judges weigh consequences and social effects rather than deciding cases based solely on semantic debates over isolated clauses stripped of context. The “living tree” pragmatically grows.

Originalism and living constitutionalism represent poles of a continuum rather than absolutes. But they frame recurring debates on interpreting constitutionality. In practice, hybrid approaches emerge balancing text, original intent, precedent, custom, and societal changes. But philosophies of interpretation critically guide understandings of legality.

Power of Judicial Review

The ability of courts, especially the Supreme Court, to strike down laws and actions as unconstitutional grants the judiciary enormous sway over America’s constitutional order. Judicial review stems from Marbury v. Madison and the Supreme Court’s asserted power to interpret constitutional applicability. It represents a defining authority making courts pivotal arbiters of legality.

Institutional Roots and Rationale

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 78 that judicial review naturally flows from judges’ sworn duty under the Supremacy Clause to apply the Constitution over conflicting statutes (9). By invalidating unconstitutional laws, courts check the legislature within the system of separated powers. Judicial independence and legal training ought to guide review, not crude majoritarianism.

Expansion Over Time

In early years, courts employed restraint in invalidating laws, but steadily gained confidence in rejecting state and federal actions on constitutional grounds concerning property, contracts and commerce (10). Under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s-60s, judicial assertiveness expanded substantially with rulings on desegregation, voting rights and civil liberties protections. Judicial review grew into one of the most consequential powers exercised by unelected officials in America’s democracy, though not free from criticism.

Debates on Appropriate Scope

Critics argue policymaking through interpretation undemocratically substitutes judicial views for the elected legislature’s judgments (11). Judicial restraint proponents contend review should only strike down unambiguous violations to avoid second-guessing reasonable policy choices. Defenders counter courts preserve liberties against infringements in ways majoritarian politics alone cannot. These debates persist today, yielding oscillations between activist and restrained judicial eras. But judicial review endures as a keystone authority.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

While the Bill of Rights originally restricted only federal government, incorporation of its protections against states provoked intense 20th century controversy. Today, most provisions apply to states, profoundly expanding constitutional safeguards for civil rights and liberties uniformly nationwide.

Selective Incorporation

Early in American history, the Bill of Rights curtailed only federal authority, as affirmed in the 1833 Barron v. Baltimore case. However, after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause provided grounds to selectively incorporate certain rights against states (12). Through the 20th century, nearly all protections were incorporated as 14th Amendment “liberty” on a case-by-case basis, including free speech and religious protections.

Debates on Appropriate Scope

Some maintain states have latitude in rights protections and oppose further nationalization (13). But advocates argue uniform liberty safeguards protect individuals against local tyranny of the majority. Disagreements center on federalism concerns versus individual rights as trumps. The Warren Court conclusively established national standards, with only a few unincorporated outliers.

Implications for Rights and Federalism

Incorporation profoundly empowered federal judiciary oversight over states, becoming a pillar of individual rights uniformity and equality. States cannot infringe incorporated protections, even via local democratic majorities. The balance of federal versus state authority shifted substantially as result, fueling debates on states’ rights. Nevertheless, incorporation expanded rights nationally.

Trends and Controversies in Modern Constitutional Law

Contemporary constitutional law remains rife with major open controversies and fragmentation in interpretive methodologies. Recent trends reflect both retrenchment from more liberal eras alongside progressive pushback in areas like individual liberties. Judicial politics are closely divided. Salient modern tensions include originalism’s revival, clashes over wartime powers, religious freedom carve outs from liberal rights, and debates on unenumerated rights.

Originalism’s Rise from the 1970s Onward

Since the 1970s, originalism experienced resurgence as conservative scholars argued living constitutionalism exceeded judiciary’s appropriate role (14). Seeking to constrain judicial activism, they urged fidelity to text and Framers’ intent. Under Justice Antonin Scalia, these philosophies obtained Supreme Court influence. Debates flared around progressive rulings on privacy and abortion rights (15). Jurisprudential divides grew alongside political polarization.

Post-9/11 Executive Authority and Constitutional War Powers

Detention and war powers controversies arose from anti-terror policies after 9/11. Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld tackled claims of unchecked Presidential authority seemingly violating due process (16). Courts often avoided bright line boundaries on what national security exigencies justify. Debates on emergency powers blurred constitutional lines, highlighting tensions between liberty and security.

Religious Freedom and Citizen Rights

First Amendment religious protection arguments gained salience in challenges to laws mandating insurance coverage of contraception (17). Exemptions based on faith raised questions on whether religious freedom can override citizen rights. Such carve-outs for faith groups from liberal public policies generate disputes, as seen in LGBTQ discrimination cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado.

Advocacy of Unenumerated Rights

On philosophies of rights, advocates urge recognizing substantive due process protections beyond those enumerated explicitly, including potentially for climate, housing, health, education or other contemporary needs (18). Critics contest expanding rights without constitutional grounding. Resolving the appropriate scope of unenumerated liberties sustains fundamental disagreement.

Key Principles of the Constitution

Some key principles embodied in the Constitution include:

Federalism – Power is divided between the national government and the states. The national government handles national defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce, currency, and more. States have their own governments to legislate areas not delegated to the federal government.
Separation of Powers – The federal government is divided into three branches – legislative (Congress), executive (President) and judicial (Supreme Court and federal courts) – with separate and defined powers to prevent tyranny.
Checks and Balances – Branches can limit each other’s power through mechanisms like veto power, Senate approval of appointments, judicial review of laws, and impeachment.
Limited Government – The Constitution grants limited, enumerated powers to the government to protect individual liberty. Powers not given are reserved to states or the people.
Rule of Law – Everyone in society, including government officials, must obey the law. Laws apply equally to all people.

Individual Rights and Civil Liberties

The Constitution places limits on government power to protect fundamental freedoms and rights.

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, gun ownership, due process, and other rights from government overreach.
Later amendments abolished slavery, extended voting rights, provided equal protection and due process, protected rights of the accused, and expanded voting rights to women and 18-year-olds.
The Supreme Court has affirmed additional rights like the right to privacy and right to interstate travel.

Some key civil liberties include:

Freedom of religion – The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion and protects free exercise of religion.
Freedom of speech – Citizens have broad protections for speaking freely under the First Amendment, though some speech like incitement is not protected.
Freedom of the press – The press has freedom to publish news and information without government censorship or restraint under the First Amendment.
Right to assemble – The First Amendment protects peaceful gatherings for expressive purposes like protests and rallies.
Right to keep and bear arms – The Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership rights, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller (2008).

Constitutional Structure and Powers of Government

The Constitution establishes the structure of the federal government and its relationship to the states. It grants limited, enumerated powers to each branch.

Congress

Has sole power to legislate and write laws for areas of federal authority like taxes, commerce, currency, post offices, patents, and more.
Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments.
Raises and funds armed forces and has power to declare war.
Senate conducts impeachment trials of federal officers.
Power to establish lower federal courts and regulate jurisdiction.
Can propose constitutional amendments with 2/3 vote.

Executive

President is head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the military. Has power to appoint federal judges and officers with Senate approval.
Vetoes bills from Congress, which can be overridden by 2/3 vote.
Has authority to make treaties and executive agreements with other nations.
Issues pardons and reprieves for federal crimes.

Judiciary

Supreme Court is the highest court with appellate power over all lower federal courts.
Courts decide cases arising under federal law and interpret the Constitution.
Power of judicial review allows courts to strike down laws found unconstitutional.

Federalism and State Powers

Federalism divides power between national and state governments. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. States have their own constitutions, legislatures, governors and state courts.

State powers include:

Establishing local governments
Conduct elections
Regulate commerce within the state
Establish and regulate schools
Regulate health, safety, and morals of citizens
Maintain police powers
Manage roads, transportation networks, parks
Administer state prisons and rehabilitative services

The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict. However, states retain substantial authority over many areas of law under their general police powers.

Constitutional Interpretation and Change

Interpreting the Constitution is primarily the role of the judicial branch. Courts rely on a number of theories and methods:

Originalism – Interprets the Constitution based on original intent of the Framers or original public meaning when adopted.
Living Constitution – Sees the Constitution as dynamic and evolving rather than fixed and static.
Judicial restraint – Judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless a clear violation of the Constitution.
Judicial activism – Judges should actively review laws and strike down those that conflict with constitutional rights.

There are two methods to formally change the Constitution:

Amendments – Requires 2/3 vote in House and Senate and ratification by 3/4 of states. 27 amendments have been adopted since the Bill of Rights.
Constitutional Convention – Congress can call a convention for proposing amendments if 2/3 of states request one. An amendment still requires 3/4 state approval.

Historical and Political Developments

Major historical developments have shaped constitutional law and interpretation over time. Key events and cases include:

Marbury v. Madison (1803) – Established judicial review power of Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) – Ruled Congress has implied powers beyond enumerated ones under necessary and proper clause.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – Supreme Court ruled slaves not citizens and Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories.
Reconstruction Amendments – Abolished slavery and provided due process and equal protection for all following the Civil War.
Lochner era (1897-1937) – Court struck down economic regulations, finding “right of contract” protected by due process clause.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – Ruled segregation in schools unconstitutional, rejecting separate but equal doctrine.
Civil Rights Movement – Led to landmark legislation on voting, public accommodations, housing discrimination and more.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – Ruled suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights when arrested.
Roe v. Wade (1973) – Found right to privacy protected abortion as part of liberty guaranteed by due process clause.

Contemporary Constitutional Debates

Some major constitutional issues and debates today include:

Originalism v. Living Constitution – Should interpretation follow original meaning or adapt to changing times and values?
Role of executive power – How much authority does the President have over immigration, war powers, executive orders and federal agencies?
Privacy rights – Does right to privacy protect abortion, same-sex marriage and other controversial personal liberties?
Right to bear arms – What regulations on sales, types of firearms and public carry are allowed under 2nd Amendment?
Equal protection – When is use of race in public university admissions, voting districts and other policies unconstitutional?
Federalism – What is the proper balance between federal and state authority on issues like marijuana, healthcare and immigration?
Religious liberty – When can laws require those with religious objections to comply, as in requiring employers provide contraception coverage?

Constitutional law provides the foundational rules and doctrines that govern the American political system. Ongoing debates and developments continue to shape its meaning and application to contemporary legal and policy issues.

Conclusion

Constitutional debates sit at the heart American law’s development and self-conception over two centuries of drastic change. Struggles among approaches to interpretation mirror deeper divides over adapting an 18th century charter to 21st century society. The Constitution’s remarkable durability as supreme law over highly contested cases and eras highlights its authors’ foresight. Yet its endurance relies equally on the dynamism of doctrines allowing flexible, if controversial, reinterpretation balancing continuity and contextual responsiveness. Constitutional law provides American governance its legal bedrock and battleground for resolving society’s most intractable conflicts around powers, rights and duties. Understanding its philosophies, evolutions and frontiers remains imperative for students of the legal system.

References:

1) Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Simon & Schuster, 2011.

2) Hamilton, Alexander et al. The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics, 2014.

3) Lawson, Gary and Seidman, Guy. “When Did the Constitution Become Law?” Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 77, no. 1, 2001, pp. 1-39.

4) Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. Random House, 2005.

5) Balkin, Jack M. Living Originalism. Harvard University Press, 2011.

6) Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press, 1998.

7) Strauss, David A. The Living Constitution. Oxford University Press, 2010.

8) Post, Robert and Siegel, Reva. “Democratic Constitutionalism.” National Constitution Center, White Paper, 2018.

9) Treanor, William Michael. “Judicial Review before Marbury.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 58, no. 2, 2005, pp. 455–562.

10) Whittington, Keith E. “‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review, vol. 99, no. 4, 2005, pp. 583-596.

11) Tushnet, Mark. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton University Press, 2000.

12) Rosenthal, Lawrence. “The Binding Effects of Constitutional Amendments.” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, vol. 22, no. 2, 2013, pp. 269-283.

13) McDonald, Michael P. “Bill of Rights.” In Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, edited by Schwartz, Paul Finkelman and Jason E. Kosek. Routledge, 2017.

14) Colby, Thomas B. and Smith, Peter J. “Living Originalism.” Duke Law Journal, vol. 59, no. 2, 2009, pp. 239-307.

15) Sunstein, Cass R. Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America. Basic Books, 2005.

16) Cole, David. “Judging the Next Emergency: Judicial Review and Individual Rights in Times of Crisis.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 101, no. 8, 2003, pp. 2565-2595.

17) Sepper, Elizabeth. “Religious Exemptions, Third-Party Harms, and the False Analogy to Church Taxes.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 106, no. 6, 2006, pp. 679-700.

18) Greene, Jamal. “The Meming of Substantive Due Process.” Wisconsin Law Review, vol. 2019, no. 2, 2019, pp. 172-256.

Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2019). Constitutional law for a changing America. CQ Press.

Hall, K. L. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press.

Alexander, L. A., & Solum, L. B. (2019). An introduction to constitutional law: 100 Supreme Court cases everyone should know. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional law: principles and policies. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Amar, A. R. (2005). America’s constitution: A biography. Random House.

Balkin, J. M. (2009). Living originalism. Harvard University Press.

Goldford, D. (2005). The American Constitution and the Debate over Originalism. Cambridge University Press.

Hall, K. L. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions. Oxford University Press.