US Government - enummerated powers - enforcement of the Bill of Rights So these are the enumerated powers of the US federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) At the end of the list there's this part: &quot;Additionally, a number of amendments include a Congressional power of enforcement in which the language &quot;The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation&quot; is used with slight variations, granting to Congress the power to enforce the following amendments:&quot; But those amendments don't include the first 10 amendments (bill of rights) Which part in the enumerated powers allows the federal government to take action against states violating the bill of rights? Or generally... any congressional law? Thanks.
Amendments to the US Constitution are part of the US Constitution, and this includes the so-called Bill of Rights. The doctrine of applying parts of the US Constitution to states, known as incorporation, comes from the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The scope of the doctrine of incorporation is logically limited to amendments because the original articles of the constitution state how the federal government is run, and does not guarantee any rights or privileges to individuals. Amendments 1,2,4,8 are fully incorporated against states, 5 and 6 are partially incorporated, third and 7th are not incorporated, and for 9th and 10th there is no ruling. This arrangement derives from decisions by the Supreme Court, interpreting the 14th Amendment and the concept of &quot;due process&quot;. If a state were to passe a law forbidding criticism of the governor (violating the First Amendment), an individual could sue to have the law found unconstitutional. Because, under the 14th Amendment, &quot;The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article&quot;, Congress can and has passed a law prohibiting violation of civil rights: 42 USC 1983. Since the state in this hypothetical scenario has violated federal law, the federal government (Dept. of Justice) has standing to sue the state for violating federal law.
Analysis. This question has never been squarely resolved by case law. An analysis would look to the U.S. Constitution (the pertinent parts of which are restated below) and case law under it, to determine if Congress has the authority to enact such a law or not including whether laws currently on the books affect it. Caucuses and primaries are used by political parties as part of their process for determining their Presidential nominees, and the only constitutional acknowledgement that they exist, or are subject to federal regulation is in the 24th Amendment. Political parties also have a 1st Amendment freedom of association interest in choosing their nominees as they see fit, subject to reasonable regulation in an area of law that is not well spelled out in case law. On the the other hand, caucuses and primaries are government regulated, mostly at the state level, because their results have an officially recognized role in Presidential elections under state laws regulating elections for Presidential electors, and primaries are generally conducted at state expense by state and local government officials, rather than by political parties acting autonomously. And, states have wide expressly granted discretion regarding how they conduct Presidential elector elections subject to the authority of Congress to prohibit various kinds of discrimination in the conduct of elections and to set the date of Presidential elections (a right that Congress has chosen not to strictly enforce allowing early voting, for example). New Hampshire does have the authority to say what a political party must do to have its nominee recognized on its general election Presidential ballot, and when it will conduct its state primaries. But, it does not necessarily have the power to determine whether or to what extent a national political party will consider the results of that primary in the process of selecting its nominee for President. The Democratic party, for example, would probably be within its rights to award no delegates to its national convention based upon New Hampshire's primary election participants based upon the New Hampshire primary election, and to instead award New Hampshire delegates solely as &quot;superdelegates&quot; who serve ex-officio, or based solely upon an entirely privately funded and operated Presidential caucus it held in New Hampshire at a date of its choosing. The flip side is that New Hampshire might be within its rights, probably, to decline to put a Democratic party national convention chosen nominee on its Presidential elector ballots, a retaliation, although arguably that would deny the rights of its citizens to vote in the Presidential election over which the federal government has more regulatory authority. The exact details of any situation leading to litigation would matter a lot, and it isn't possible to predict with any great certainty how a challenge would come out, although it is possible to articulate what provisions of the U.S. Constitution (and with more research, what court cases (maybe a dozen or two are arguably pertinent), federal statutes and state statutes) would be pertinent to the decision. It is possible to advocate for an outcome within the range of legally relevant authority, but, in practice, a negotiated compromise that would not push up against the hard constitutional limits of the constitution, relevant statutes and cases would almost surely be reached before it came to that point. For example, while New Hampshire might arguably have the right to refuse to put the Democratic nominee on the ballot because it didn't consider the results of its first in the nation primary in choosing its nominee, I very much doubt that New Hampshire officials would actually go that far, if push came to shove. On the other hand, if Congress passed a law stating that the District of Columbia shall hold the first in the nation primary, as it is probably expressly authorized to do under the 23rd Amendment, that federal law would probably pre-empt New Hampshire's law on the point. Relevant Provisions Of The U.S. Constitution As Amended Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution might be relevant. It states: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution might be pertinent, it states in the pertinent part that: The Congress shall have power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Even more directly, Article II, Section 1 which states, in part, that: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: 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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. . . The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. Article VI states in the pertinent part that: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. These sections state: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . . Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. . . . Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: 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 Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the only one expressly recognizing the existence of primary elections, might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might apply. It states: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Collectively, these sections of the U.S. Constitution give the federal government considerable legislative authority to regulate state elections for federal offices.
There is no constitutional requirement that Congress provide copyright protection in the US. Congress could, if it so chooses, repeal Title 17 of the US Code, and afford no copyright protection whatsoever. Given that the US has protected copyright from its earliest days, that copyright protection in English law dates to the 1600s, that almost every nation currently has a Law protecting copyright, and that such protection is a requirement of membership in the World Trade organization (WTO) I find it highly unlikely that such a change in the law will be made in the foreseeable future. But Congress does have the power to abolish copyright in the US.
Because an "Order, Resolution, or Vote" is not the same as a Bill, and does not become a law. Thus the procedure for presentation, leading to signing, pocket acceptance, veto, or pocket veto, does not apply to Orders, Resolutions, or Votes. Therefore it is repeated to indicate that it applies to those legislative acts also. A "Vote", in the sense used here is a legislative decision or action that is neither a Bill nor a resolution. For example, the decision on when to adjourn to, that is, when Congress will come back into session after an adornment, is a Vote. A "Bill" is a proposed law. If it is passed by Congress and not vetoed, or if any veto is overridden, it becomes a law. Other legislative actions do not become laws, but otherwise go through much the same procedure. Note that some legislative actions do notneed the "Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives". For example, when the House votes on a new Speaker, it is a vote of the House only, and neither the Senate nor the President has a say.
There is no constitutional provision which grants the President such power. I am not aware of any provision of federal law which grants such power, nor of any case where a real president has exercised such a power. Of course, the President is a citizen, and any citizen may make a Citizen's arrest Particularly for a felony. (See also this FindLaw page on the subject.) And of course, as the head of the executive department, the President could order someone who clearly has powers of arrest to make an arrest, although such an order would not be valid in the absence of legal cause to make an arrest. A comment called atention to 10 USC §252 which provides: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. The history for this section dates from 1861. A note indicates that a prior version was the basis of Executive order 10730, sending federal forces into Little Rock, AK in 1957 to enforce school integration there. However, this section does not explicitly increase the arrest powers of anyone, and does not grant the President personally any power of arrest.
&quot;Seila Law&quot; is a law firm, not a law. They were a party in a recent SCOTUS decision, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S ___, which involved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Congress, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the structure of that law (regarding appoinntment and firing of the director) is unconstitutional: The CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers. More specifically, Article II vests the entire “executive Power” in the President alone, but the Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers will assist the President in discharging his duties. The President’s executive power generally includes the power to supervise — and, if necessary, remove — those who exercise the President’s authority on his behalf. The President’s removal power has long been confirmed by history and precedent. The law in question addresses a single position, director of CFPB, not all government agencies. &quot;Agency&quot; is defined in 18 USC 6 as includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense. &quot;Department&quot; is then defined as one of the executive departments enumerated in section 1 of Title 5, unless the context shows that such term was intended to describe the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the government. POTUS firing power is about the executive branch, not the judicial or legislative branches, so it depends on what you mean by &quot;agency&quot;. You can infer possible outcomes based on this ruling, but what they literally said is that particular law is unconstitutional.
Article 10 of Part I of the Constitution of New Hampshire (Article 10, Part II relates to classification of town governments) is mentioned in five reported appellate cases in the history of New Hampshire since it was adopted in 1784 that I could locate. It has never successfully been effective to protect the rights of anyone invoking it. (It is possible that it has been argued in a trial court on a jury nullification theory, but such cases wouldn't produce reported cases as criminal acquittals cannot be appealed by the government.) The cases, and the pertinent part of each ruling, are as follows: Orr v. Quimby, 54 N.H. 590, 619 (1874), it was held to create a moral rather than a legal right: The legal idea of a bill of rights is a declaration of private rights, annexed to and made a part of a constitutional grant of governmental power. Reservation is, in general, the purpose and legal meaning of such declaration. For exceptional reasons, applicable to the construction of article 10, the right of insurrection there declared is evidently a moral right, not reserved as a legal one. But many of the most important constitutional rights are reserved in terms much less imperative than "shall" and "shall not." The right of petitioning for a redress of grievances (the plaintiff's sole remedy, if the plea is good) is reserved by a simple declaration of the right, without a word literally signifying a command or prohibition. It was also addressed in the case Opinion of the Justices, 144 N.H. 374, 746 A.2d 981 (1999) where it was found to not invalidate a means of raising revenue for a municipal electrical utility: Question two inquires whether HB 536 "violate[s] the constitutional provision that government is instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men under part I, article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution?" We answer this question in the negative. Part I, Article 10 provides: Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly [746 A.2d 987] endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. This provision of our constitution has commonly been regarded as enumerating a citizen's right to reform an ineffectual or manifestly corrupt form of government. See City of Claremont v. Craigue, 135 N.H. 528, 533-34, 608 A.2d 866, 869 (1992); Nelson v. Wyman, 99 N.H. 33, 50, 105 A.2d 756, 770 (1954). We have recognized for over one hundred years, however, that this provision is imbued with "[t]he principle of equality [that] pervades the entire constitution," State v. Pennoyer, 65 N.H. 113, 114, 18 A. 878, 879 (1889), and as such, Article 10 provides support for the maxim that "[t]he law cannot discriminate in favor of one citizen to the detriment of another." Id. Thus, Part I, Article 10 has been recognized as providing for more than a "right of revolution"; rather, it is one of many provisions in our Bill of Rights that forms the basis for a citizen's right to equal protection. See, e.g., Town of Chesterfield v. Brooks, 126 N.H. 64, 67, 489 A.2d 600, 602 (1985) (zoning ordinance violated equal protection rights guaranteed by Part I, Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14); Gazzola v. Clements, 120 N.H. 25, 29, 411 A.2d 147, 151 (1980) (statute violated equal protection rights guaranteed by Part I, Articles 1, 10, 12, and 14). Pursuant to the principle of equality inherent in Article 10, this court found that the raising of tax revenue to aid an electric utility would violate Part I, Article 10's mandate that government is "instituted for the common benefit ... of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men." Opinion of the Justices, 88 N.H. 484, 489, 190 A. 425, 429 (1937). Aid to a utility is forbidden except in protection of the public welfare and interest. And the protection must be in a needed service furnished the public by the utility as a condition of the aid. Without the condition the protective principle is inapplicable. Unconditional aid is not a proper charge of government to be met by the taxpayers. 144 N.H. 382 Id. at 488-89, 190 A. at 428. The court noted that the existing public utilities already provided sufficient power to service State customers, and that any additional supply was sent out-of-state. Id. at 489, 190 A. at 429. The court reasoned that because the transmission of additional electric energy outside the State served no public purpose, and thus the need for public funds for additional development was a private, not public, purpose, the proposed aid was unconstitutional. Id. In this case, however, the legislature is proposing to create a tax exemption, rather than directly raising tax revenue to subsidize private purposes. Cf. Opinion of the Justices (Mun. Tax Exemptions for Indus. Constr.), 142 N.H. at 101, 697 A.2d at 124 (finding determinative under Part II, Article 5 that there was not direct expenditure, but rather a uniform exemption of state-wide application). Moreover, even if one views an exemption as simply a form of direct grant, see Eyers Woolen Co. v. Gilsum, 84 N.H. 1, 9, 146 A. 511, 515 (1929) (exemptions are "in effect, a compulsory payment of money, by those who bear their shares of the common burden, to the privileged person who does not bear his share"), the public benefit gained by this legislation is sufficient to render it constitutional. Our constitution does not require absolute equality of burden in the case of exemptions. "The resulting inequality or discrimination against unexempted property is not fatal to the constitutionality of the exemption," Opinion of the Justices, 87 N.H. 490, 491, 178 A. 125, 126 (1935), provided "it advances a public purpose," Opinion of the Justices, 95 N.H. at 550, 65 A.2d at 701, and is "properly within the legislature's discretion in acting for the welfare of the state," Opinion of [746 A.2d 988] the Justices, 87 N.H. at 491, 178 A. at 126. As stated above, the benefit to be gained by HB 536 is increased competition and customer choice, and not necessarily the need for additional power. Further, deregulation of the electric utility industry is "properly within the legislature's discretion in acting for the welfare of the state," id., and it is proper for the legislature to enact exemptions that promote the economic well-being of the State, see Opinion of the Justices (Mun. Tax Exemptions for Indus. Constr.), 142 N.H. at 100, 697 A.2d at 123. Accordingly, the tax exemption is properly granted under the legislature's "constitutional power to provide for the common benefit, protection and security," Opinion of the Justices, 88 N.H. at 487, 190 A.2d at 428, and does not violate Part I, Article 10. To the extent that question two implicates additional equal protection guarantees under Part I, Article 10, cf. Gazzola, 120 N.H. at 29, 411 A.2d at 151, we conduct our analysis concurrently with the next question you posed; namely, whether HB 536 improperly classifies taxable property such that the burden of taxation is inequitably distributed, cf. Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 320-21, 197 A. 701, 706 (1938) (constitutional issue of classification decided under Part I, Article 10). For the reasons stated below, this part of question two is answered in the negative. In another case, City of Claremont v. Craigue, 135 N.H. 528, 608 A.2d 866 (1992), it was argued unsuccessfully, that voter approval cleansed an improperly adopted budget of the taint of improper steps taken prior to the vote: Finally, the respondents cite part I, article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution, known as the right of revolution, as a general right to self-determination. Part I, article 10 provides in pertinent part that "whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, [135 N.H. 534] or establish a new government." Without in any way detracting from the continuing validity and truth of part I, article 10, we find that none of [608 A.2d 870] the conditions specified in that article have been met in this case. Prohibiting voter ratification of a city's budget hardly "perverts" the ends of government or manifestly endangers public liberty, so long as the city's voters retain the right to elect their local representatives. Moreover, the defendants have not exhausted all other legal means of redress, since, as we noted above, the legislature has set forth a statutory procedure for charter revision, and that option remains available to the voters of Claremont. Therefore, the respondents' proposed revisions to the Claremont city charter are invalid, and of no effect. It was brought up, without success, in In re Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. 314, 911 A.2d 1 (2006), but I don't have access to that particular opinion in which an environmental regulation was challenged. It was raised in Nelson v. Wyman, 99 N.H. 33, 105 A.2d 756 (1954) where the court concluded that it did not invalidate a McCarthy era law: It is also strongly urged by the plaintiff that the Legislature of this state cannot proscribe activities looking to the overthrow of government by force or violence because of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights which provides, in part, that ‘whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind’. With this interpretation we cannot agree. The right reserved to the people by this Article is not such a broad and unlimited right of insurrection and rebellion as to permit any group which is dissatisfied with existing government to lawfully attempt at any time to overthrow the government by force or violence. It is not claimed by the plaintiff that ‘the ends of government’ are now ‘perverted’, ‘public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress * * * ineffectual’ but it is only when those conditions prevail that the right to resist and to ‘reform the old, or establish a new government’ exists. The right possessed by the people of this state as a protection against arbitrary power and oppression cannot be utilized to justify the violent overthrow of government when the adoption of peaceful and orderly changes, properly reflecting the will of the people, may be accomplished through the existing structure of government. 99 N.H. 51 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 501, 549, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137. To require a government representative of the people, in the face of preparations for revolution by force, to refrain from acting to curb the [105 A.2d 771] outbreak of violence and to confine itself solely to holding answerable those persons who have committed crimes of violence and terrorized the community in the name of revolution must result in anarchy. Dennis v. United States, supra, 341 U.S. 501, 71 S.Ct. 857. Article 10 was not intended to accomplish this result. So far as the circumstances of this case have required an examination of the 1951 act, we conclude that it is constitutional upon its face, so as to furnish a basis for the resolution of 1953.
It's not clear what the big deal is. Congress has already passed vast numbers of laws for POTUS to enforce, and has left the details of implementation up to the executive branch. The main limitation is that you need a Congress to fund any new federal government projects. The Constitution anticipates this problem, and there are clauses regarding filling vacancies (clearly applicable to the dead). Assuming that zombies are rioting in the streets, POTUS can invoke the National Emergencies Act, issuing an executive order to call out the National Guard.