Missouri Government and Politics: Lecture 3 – Constitution
Articles,  Blog

Missouri Government and Politics: Lecture 3 – Constitution


(jazzy electronic music) – Well, welcome back. We’ve talked about political ideology, Missouri being a conservative state. We’ve also talked about political culture in terms of Missouri
being an individualistic and traditionalistic state. Before we get started on the constitution, does anybody have any
questions for the material that we’ve covered? Carlos? No. I don’t know where the
rumor started about snakes in this building but there
are no snakes in the building. We’re on the third floor. If there were snakes in the building, they would be in the basement. So I don’t think you have
anything to worry about. But, anyway, don’t worry about it. What I want to talk about
today is really the nitty gritty aspects of the Constitution. Look at the Missouri State
Constitution in comparison to the US Constitution. And in one sense I regret
spending time on the US Constitution because you
already had that class. But I think it’s easier to understand the Missouri Constitution
when you see it in comparison to the US Constitution. And the easiest way for me to do that is to give you basically
a theory of constitutions. And I brought a prop with me. And that is the Origins of
American Constitutionalism. This is a book by Donald
Lutz, a political scientist who basically created a theory
of what constitutions do. And it comes down to basically six things. And so what we’re gonna
do today is talk about the six things that constitutions do. And then review a little bit about the American Constitution,
the US Constitution, and see how it performs
those six functions. And then spend the rest of the time talking about the Missouri Constitution. And ultimately, we’re gonna
look at the US Constitution and focus on those things
that are different. So I’m hoping that you
have some familiarity with the US Constitution from
your American Government class so that we can focus on what’s
different about Missouri. But I wanna start with Don Lutz and his six part theory of constitutions. And what I want to focus on
before I even write it down is what’s the nice thing about a theory? Well, it’s a theory about
what all constitutions do and we can use this theory to
compare the US Constitution to the Missouri Constitution. We can use this theory to
compare the US Constitution to other constitutions. Can somebody tell me what
the first constitution of the United States was? Joanie, that’s an interesting observation. You could say the Mayflower
Compact was in fact the first constitution, but I
don’t wanna go that far back. We’ll let the history
department go that far back. John? The Articles of Confederation. I could take Don’s theory and compare the Articles of Confederation
and how it does things to the US Constitution. We could take the US
Constitution and compare it to the constitution of France. And so it’s a useful theory
to show the differences and the similarities
between all constitutions. And so I think it’s
important to start here. And I’ll write out the
six parts of the theory and then we’ll talk about the definitions before we actually move
on to the Constitution. Number one, all constitutions
create a form of government. And again we’ll talk about what
that means in just a second. All constitutions create
a form of government. All constitutions distribute political power. So number one is a form of government, number two is distribution
of political power. Number three is establishing
the authority of government. And when we’re establishing
the authority of government and distributing the political power, all constitutions provide for limits on the power of government. If you go back to that
American Government textbook, the very definition of
constitutional government is a limited government. And so if someone says the
constitutional government, they mean by definition limit. So all constitutions, number four, limit the power of government. Now, some people would argue that this is in fact
the most important thing that a constitution does and
we’ll talk about number four in relation to Missouri
in just a little bit. Number five, all constitutions provide for conflict management. No governmental system is perfect. And so a constitution
should provide mechanisms to resolve conflict and
we’ll see how that works with, again, both US and Missouri. Last but not least, all constitutions define citizenship. Who does this constitution apply to? It applies to citizens. And so these six things from Don Lutz, create a form of government,
distribute political power, establish authority, limiting
the power of government, providing for conflict management,
and defining citizenship. These are six things that
all constitutions do. The constitution for the
student government association at Missouri State University
does these six things. The Constitution of the United
States does these six things and so this is basically the theory. But let’s talk a little
bit about the definitions as we move in to the US Constitution. When we say form of government, so if we’re gonna go across, if I said the US Constitution
establishes the form of government, what form
of government do we have? Carly? Unfortunately, Carly, that’s
the most common wrong answer. We don’t live in a democracy. Now, most people, or some
people get offended when we say the United States is not a democracy. But in political science
terms, we have a representative democracy, the fancy term for
representative democracy is a republican form of government. And we’re gonna establish the difference here in a minute Carly,
but a direct democracy is where the people decide. A republican form of
government, or representative democracy, is where the
people elect representatives. So the first thing that you think of when you think of the United
State form of government is that it is republican. We elect representatives
to serve us in Washington. Now, you’re gonna dread this, comma. That means there’s something else. So there’s another aspect of
form, and I’m not gonna ask because sometimes it takes
us forever to get there. The United States
Constitution also establishes a federal form of government. There’s a lot of confusion
over the term federal. When we say federal, we
sometimes mean national. But the definition of federal is simply the division between national and sub-national units of government. And we say sub-national instead of states because Canada has a
federal form of government but it doesn’t have
states, it has provinces. Mexico has a federal form of government and they have states
like the United States. So the definition of
federal, in terms of form of government means a
distinction between a national government with certain powers and sub-national governments
with certain powers. And so the United States
Constitution with respect to form establishes a republican
form of government and a federal form of government. Now, I think in terms of
distribution of political powers, this is pretty straightforward review. What’s the very first
principle that you learn about the US Constitution? Carlos? Separation of powers. When we think about
distributing political powers, that’s exactly what the concept of separation of powers does. No one branch of the United
States government has all power. If you take this concept and go backwards to the Articles of Confederation, you’ll find that there’s
only one branch of government under the articles, executive,
legislative, judicial, all is in the legislature. There is no executive branch. There is no judicial branch. So one of the differences
between the Articles and the current US
Constitution is this notion of separation of powers. Now, distributing political
powers is more than just the separation, you wanna look
at the Articles themselves. So when we talk about
separation of powers, you want to look at Article I. Here the powers of the
legislature are laid out. Look at Article II and you find the powers of the executive branch. Article III you find the
powers of the judiciary. So the US Constitution
fulfills this distribution of political powers with the
concept of separation of powers. Number three is
establishing the authority. And almost everyone knows
how the Constitution begins. We the people. And the best way to
understand the establishment of power is this constitution, this phrase from the Constitution. Who establishes the constitution? Under whose authority is
this constitution written? It is written under the
authority of the people of the United States. We the people come together to
establish this constitution. So it is under the
authority of the people. And again, this is a difference
between the US Constitution today and the Articles of Confederation. If this was the Articles of Confederation, this would be we the states. There was no concept of the
people at a national level prior to the US Constitution. So, it’s three little words. But it’s an important change from the Articles of Confederation
to the US Constitution. Now, limiting the power of government. Again, some people think this
is the most important thing. And we’re gonna get a little
murky and complicated here so please stay with me. The US Constitution limits
the power of government in a variety of different ways. But there’s one that’s more
important than the other. And that is the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments
to the US Constitution are what we call the Bill of Rights. And it starts very simply with
Congress shall make no law. That is a limitation on
the power of government. Now, as you’ve seen in your
American Government classes, as we’ll see later on in this class, no law doesn’t always mean no law. But the Bill of Rights
itself is a limitation on the power of government. Let’s go back to the American history. Again, I don’t want to do
this but it’s important to understand the
distinction between the US and the Missouri Constitution. We go back to the Federalists
and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted
the new US Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were not satisfied with the new US Constitution. Most important of all
for the Anti-Federalists was the lack of a Bill of Rights. The Federalists said we don’t need one. The Anti-Federalists said yes we do. No we don’t. Yes we do. Finally the Federalists said fine. We will amend the Constitution. You ratify, we’ll amend. And so the Anti-Federalists get their wish and a Bill of Rights limiting
the power of government is amended to the Constitution. So in which way is the
US Constitution limited? Which of the following
is the most important way in which the Constitution is limited? It has to be the Bill of Rights. But, it’s not the only limitation. I think it’s important to talk about this, again with respect to Missouri. The Bill of Rights is the
most important limitation but not the only one. Can anybody whip some Latin on me? Nobody’s gonna whip Latin on me. Let me get you started. Habeas corpus. Expost facto. I’m crossing over the board here. Bills of attainder. Habeas corpus, in Latin,
means to produce the body. In legal terms, Carly,
there aren’t any snakes in the building, I think
you can put your feet down. Habeas corpus means to produce the body. In legal terms, that means
you can’t hold someone without them being charged with a crime. You have to be brought
before an arraignment judge and we don’t want to do
the technical details. The Constitution of the United
States says that you can not suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That means you can not be held in jail without being charged with a crime. It’s part of the US
Constitution but it’s not part of the Bill of the Rights. Expost facto law. You can’t be charged with a crime that is illegal today but
wasn’t illegal yesterday. The US Congress passes
a law banning Pop-tarts and Diet Pepsis for breakfast, which would probably get
a lot of you arrested. Pop-tarts and Diet Pepsis for
breakfast is illegal today. They arrest you for doing it yesterday. That’s an expost facto
law that is prohibited by the US Constitution. So that is another limitation
in the US Constitution that is not in the Bill of Rights. Bills of attainder are laws that specifically target one individual. So if one individual does one thing, and the United States
Congress passes a law forbidding that one thing, that would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Again, a limit that’s not
in the Bill of Rights. Now, if you reach into your backpacks and pull out your thinking caps, I wanna talk just briefly
about the third limitation and that third limitation is the principle of enumeration. The Anti-Federalists said
we need a Bill of Rights. The Federalists said no we don’t. The Federalists response
was look, we’ve got the habeas corpus thing, we
got the expost facto thing, we got the bill of attainder thing, we got the contract clause thing. What more do you want? Well, we want more
limitations on government, that’s what we want. Then the Federalists
talked about enumeration. Article I that sets out the
powers of the legislature, section eight has what’s known
as the enumerated powers. Congress has the power to raise army. Congress has the power to coin money. Congress has the power to tax. Congress has the power to,
and so on and so forth. And you go through that list of things that the Constitution
specifically grants Congress the power to do. The argument that the
Federalists have made and certain state’s rights
advocates today continue to make is that this list, this
enumeration of powers, is a limit by itself. Enumeration means numbered. Enumeration means listed. According to this argument,
according to the argument that the Federalists made,
the Congress has these powers, these powers that are
listed, and that’s it. So if it’s not included
in the enumerated powers, Congress doesn’t have that power. Now, that argument was
part of the Federalist, Anti-Federalist argument. But that’s an argument that
seems to have come back today with respect to the healthcare law, with respect to other
arguments in regard to tension between the states and
the federal government. So this requires thought. Requires perhaps more reading, requires more effort than we would put out in a one hour class. But the enumeration is
also seen as a limit to the power of government. But again, multiple choice question, which of the following is
the most important limitation of the power of government, it’s gotta be the Bill of Rights because
that’s what it is there for. Questions about that? Alright, well let’s move on to five, which is conflict management. And we’ll keep it consistent here and we’ll put it right here. How does the US Constitution provide for conflict management? This requires again a little nuance. Let’s go back up to number two here. You learn two principles in high school, in junior high, in fourth grade,
in the American Government class that you took out of
state, which is why you’re here, two concepts, separation of powers and John? Joanie? Checks and balances. If you think about checks and balances, I’m
gonna argue the same thing that Don Lutz argues, I’m
gonna argue that checks and balances are best seen
as conflict management and not part of the
distribution of political power. And it’s a lame example,
but I have to use it anyway. What are we doing with
checks and balances? Well, bottom line is we
are avoiding conflict. Think about a long trip that
you took with your parents, think about a long trip that
you took with your parents and your little sister in the back seat. Not touching you. Not touching you. Mom! What do mom and dad do
on those long car trips? Separate DVD players, separate CD players, separate games, separate this. What mom and dad are trying to do is manage conflict by avoiding conflict. If all power is in the legislature, there’s gonna be conflict. If all power’s in the executive,
there’s gonna be conflict. If there’s all power in the judiciary, there’s going to be conflict. One of the lessons
learned from the Articles to the US Constitution
is that distribution of political power but
with checks and balances. So the president has the power to veto. Congress has the power to override. The president can nominate, but the senate has to approve. And so, we talk about separation of powers maybe a little bit less
than we did 50 years ago and it’s more concept of shared powers. But I think for this theory,
it’s important to put separation of powers up here and check and balances down here because really what checks and balances is is a way to manage conflict. Now, is that the only way? Is that the best way? I think the answer is no. It is important to recognize
the amendment process. As I said before, no
governmental system is perfect. And the constitutional
amendment process recognizes that things will change. Think about the constitutional
amendment process as a steam valve, and I know nobody knows what a steam valve is anymore. If you go over to McDonald
Arena, I think they still have steam radiators for
heaters, the steam valve is that thing that you turn
to release the pressure. Pressure builds, pressure
builds, pressure builds. Women’s right to vote, pressure builds, pressure builds, pressure builds. Just before everything
explodes, amend the Constitution to allow women to vote. Prohibition, pressure
builds, pressure builds, pressure builds, pass the
prohibition amendment. Oh good, pressure goes down. Wait, pressure builds again
to repeal prohibition. And so these amendment process is a way for the US Constitution to
provide for conflict management. And I think this one is, we
haven’t amended the Constitution that many times, we’ll talk
about here in just a second, but the bottom line is this is a mechanism for conflict management. Last, but not least, how
does the US Constitution define citizenship? Well, before you answer that
question, who’s a citizen? What’s the easiest way to
define who’s a citizen? The short answer is,
again, 100 level class, the short answer is who can vote. If you can vote, you’re a citizen. And the question here is how does the US Constitution define citizenship. Well, the sad part of Don Lutz’s theory is the US Constitution
fails to define citizenship. The US Constitution as originally adopted does not define citizenship. And that causes a problem for Don’s theory because all constitutions are
supposed to define citizenship so either the US Constitution
fails to do one of the most important things or there’s
a little bit more to it. And I like to go with a
little bit more to it. And we get another drawing. This is the US Constitution. This is the Bill of Rights. When I say the Constitution
as originally adopted, I mean that whole package. And this is an important distinction. Not everyone would agree
to this, but most people think one, two, three, four,
the Constitution without the amendments, this is the Constitution, this is amendments. I think this whole thing
is the Constitution as originally adopted because
as we said a minute ago, if the Founding Fathers hadn’t
agreed to the Bill of Rights, this would not have been passed. And so it’s important to
think about the Constitution as originally adopted
to include both parts. But, the Constitution doesn’t
define citizenship here and the Constitution doesn’t
define citizenship here. So again, we still fail
this sixth purpose. Now, what Dr. Lutz
would argue, and I think it’s an important thing to
think about because we’re gonna talk about Missouri is that while people think I’m wrong,
calling this the Constitution as originally adopted, Dr.
Lutz takes that a step further and Dr. Lutz says The
Constitution, capital T, includes the 13 state constitutions. And it’s an important consideration. Did the Founding Fathers
try to define citizenship at the Constitutional Convention? And the answer is yes. There were vigorous debates
at the Constitution Convention about the definition of citizenship. But they could not
agree to one definition. The Founding Fathers of the United States at the Constitution Convention left number six to the states. So your US citizenship is defined by the state Constitution
where you reside. So Georgia defines citizenship,
North Carolina defines citizenship, New York defines citizenship, Pennsylvania defines citizenship. Two ways to look at this. Either the US Constitution fails or the US Constitution includes
the definition of citizenship. And I think this is a
useful way to think about it but it doesn’t work very well
on a multiple choice exam. So according to Dr. Connor,
the Constitution as originally adopted, the main Constitution
plus the Bill of Rights, fails to define citizenship. And I think that’s an
important way to remember it. The rest of this stuff,
if we were doing bluebooks and essay exams, we could talk about it, but, you know, that’s essentially it. So Don Lutz’s theory, create
a form, distribute political power, establish the
authority, limit the power, provide for conflict
management, define citizenship. This is how the US Constitution does it with respect to republican and federal, separation of powers, we the
people, the Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and
the question about whether it defines citizenship or not. And again, we’ll come back
to that here as we go. Questions about any of that
before we move on to Missouri? Okay. Let me erase this side
so we can get Missouri. And we’ll do a little flashback
to the US Constitution when we get to the end here. Joanie, question. Does the US Constitution
define citizenship now? Absolutely, yes it does. And let’s do that before
we talk about Missouri. Alright. Now that I’ve erased
it, thank you very much. Does the US Constitution as originally adopted define citizenship? No, it does not. Does it define citizenship now? Absolutely. The best way to define citizenship,
as we said a minute ago, is the right to vote. So let’s talk about
that for just a second. At the time of the founding, this is the number of
people that can vote. Not very many. White males with a
certain level of property. If you think about the
constitutional amendment process, how many amendments have there been? Well, okay, let me ask it a different way. What’s the number of the first amendment to the Constitution? It’s not one. If this is part of the original
package, then the first constitutional amendment
is actually number 11. Now, there have been a
total of 27 amendments. I would argue here, I would
argue in the American Government class, I wouldn’t have
argued it here except Joanie asked the question, I would
argue that the majority of these 11 through 27 have to do with the definition of citizenship. Now, 11 through 27, let’s
subtract the two prohibition amendments because they
cancel each other out and let’s think about this. After the Civil War, 13, 14, and 15. All grant citizenship to former slaves, African Americans in the United States. So what happens to the
definition of citizenship? It gets bigger. 13, 14, and 15. If you look at 17, this is direct election of senators. An argument can be made
that the 17th amendment expands the definition of
citizenship because prior to the 17th amendment, you did
not have the right to vote for your United States senators. And an argument is made that that expands the definition of citizenship. It’s also important to
look at the 19th amendment, which grants the franchise to women. It’s also worth looking
at numbers 23 and 24. 23 allows residents of the
District of Columbia to vote. Prior to the 23rd Amendment,
citizens in the District of Columbia were not allowed to vote. 24 prohibits poll tax. Prior to the 24th Amendment,
I’ll write tax instead of ta. Prior to the 24th Amendment, states and municipalities
and counties and so on were allowed to charge taxes
in order for you to vote. And so we’ve expanded this and of course, last but certainly not
least, the 26th Amendment which allows 18 year olds to vote. And I’m running out of space. I would argue, again back to the question, that the history of amendments
to the United States Constitution, if you think
about conflict management and resolving conflict,
the majority of these 11 through 27 have to do with expanding the definition of citizenship. And this will be important
as we talk about Missouri. Does that answer that question Joanie? More answer than you probably wanted. Okay. Now, a study tip. I try and get students to study horizontally instead of vertically. If you think about Don Lutz’s
theory, one, two, three, four, five, six, you look at your notes, one, two, three, four, five, six, and then you look at the Constitution, one, two, three, four, five, six. Most of you are gonna study for an exam and you’re gonna go and then you’re gonna repeat it. And then you’re gonna close your eyes. One, two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three, four, five, six. The best way to learn this
material is to put it in context. What you should do is one,
create a form of government. One, how the US Constitution
creates a form of government and one, how the Missouri Constitution creates a form of government. So if you can think about
this material in context instead of just going down,
once you turn that page, you’ve forgotten what’s on there. You don’t see the relevance. So I think it’s important
in terms of studying to think about the Missouri elements here and how they relate to the US. So we’re gonna start the same way. We’re gonna put one, two,
three, four, five, six, and it’s important that
you get the same lame joke that has been told for 22
years or so in the class. When we talk about the US
Constitution as compared to the Missouri Constitution,
it’s important to remember how do you catch a unique rabbit. Well, of course, you ‘neak up on him. I apologize. Now, the important question is how do you catch a tame rabbit? And the answer is the tame way. US Constitution in Missouri, most people focus on the tame thing. Does the US Constitution
protect free speech? Yes. Does the Missouri Constitution
protect free speech? Yes. Does the Missouri Constitution
have separation of powers? Yes, and so on. I don’t want to talk
about the same things. We’ll identify those
things that are the same but I want to focus on those
things that are different. And so let’s keep that
in mind when we think about the Missouri Constitution. Does the Missouri Constitution
create a form of government? The answer is yes. What form of government does it have? Well, Carly, it has a
republican form of government. Thank you very much. Like the United States
Constitution, Missouri’s voters elect representatives to
represent them in Jefferson City. Good, well, oh, there it is, the comma. What does comma mean? That means there’s something else. The question is is Missouri
a federal form of government? Well, Paul is correct. Missouri is divided into counties. Does that make it federal? And the answer is no. Missouri has what is called
a unitary form of government. Yes, Paul is correct that
Missouri is divided into counties. And those counties are
divided into municipalities and cities, we’ll talk about
that later on in the course. But the important thing to
remember, in a federal form of government that we
have in the United States, the national government
has certain defined powers and the state governments
have certain defined powers. In Missouri, all political
power is in Jefferson City. Jefferson City, the state
government has the power to create counties and to take them apart, to create cities and to take them apart. The power in the state of
Missouri is not divided between a central and sub-central. All political power is
contained in Jefferson City. So talking about the
things that are different, both US and Missouri have
republican form of government, but Missouri has a unitary form where the national has a federal form. Yes, I know, it’s another comma. This, for the rest of the class,
is going to be a clipboard. I know it doesn’t look like a clipboard, but it’s the only thing that I have. I want you to take this
clipboard and I want you to go down to the library center. What am I gonna do with that? Has anybody been to the library center and been handed a clipboard by anyone? It’s a petition. And we’re gonna talk about
this later on in the semester, a pro and a con on the initiative
and referendum process. But, the initiative and referendum process makes Missouri’s form of government democratic. You, the citizen of
Missouri, have the power to take your clipboard
to the library center and say I want to make this law. I want to make this
constitutional amendment. And if you get the requisite
number of signatures, it goes on the ballot. And the people of Missouri vote on it. The people of Missouri
can put it on the ballot and then the people of
Missouri vote on it. And that, my friends, is direct democracy. So this is fundamentally
different than the US Constitution because you do not have that option. So even though Missouri has a
republican form of government where we elect representatives,
you retain that power to make laws and amend
your constitution yourself, which is the very essence of democracy. So it’s an important difference. So in terms of form of government,
Missouri has all three. Now, distribution of
political power in Missouri is essentially the same
with a little tweak. Missouri, like the US Constitution,
establishes separation of powers but it does
it in a different way. The separation of powers
are divided between the legislature, which is Article III, the executive, which is Article IV, and the judiciary, which is Article V. Article II establishes the principle of separation of powers. In the US Constitution, separation of powers is implicit. While there’s some powers
in Article I, Article II, and Article III, in the
Missouri State Constitution, separation of powers is explicit. An entire article, Article II,
is devoted to the principle of separation of powers. And so there is a difference
in the way that principle’s translated in the constitution. More importantly, let
me erase a little bit, focusing on the things that are different, we have a president and a vice president. We have a governor and
lieutenant governor. The difference is the governor
and lieutenant governor are elected separately. The governor and lieutenant
governor have separate powers. If you look at the Constitution
of the state of Missouri, you will find the powers
and duties of the governor and lieutenant governor are specified. You will also find the secretary of state. You will also find the treasurer. Now, we are going to talk
about all of these elected executive branch office
holders later on in the class, but it’s important to
recognize here that one of the key differences between
the US and the Missouri Constitution is the fact
that the executive branch office holders are elected by you. This is unlike electing
the secretary of state in the United States and so on. It is also, aside from
these elected executives, it is also important to note
that all of the bureaucracy, the Department of Revenue, the
Department of Conservation, the powers and the duties
of the Highway Department. These are also specified in the
Missouri State Constitution. So that distribution of political power, which is fairly broad
in the US Constitution, Article I, Article II,
Article III, is very specific in the Missouri Constitution. So it’s important to
recognize that distinction. Questions? Alright. Part three. Establishing authority. How does the Missouri
State Constitution begin? Joanie, you have a guess? Thank you Joanie, that is correct. The Missouri State Constitution
begins with we the people. But unlike the US
Constitution, Missouri adds we the people with profound
reverence for the supreme ruler of the universe and
thankful for his goodness, wait a minute. Who’s in my preamble? John, who’s in the preamble? God is in the preamble of the
Missouri State Constitution. We the people of Missouri
with profound reverence for the supreme ruler of the universe. So it’s we the people plus God. What’s God doing in the preamble? What’s that principle that we
talk about in American history and American Government classes? Carlos? Separation of church and state. Now, I don’t want to get into a debate about prayer in school and
the Pledge of Allegiance and separation of church and state, but it raises an interesting question. God is in the preamble of the
Missouri State Constitution when God has no presence here. It’s important to explain. I guess the easiest way
to do this is to have one of you, Paul, I
want you to wash my car. I’ll give you $100 to wash
my car, it’s pretty dirty. Okay, thank you, Paul
agrees to wash my car. Now the question is do
Paul and I have a contract? Did I have to write it
down and have him sign it for us to have a contact? Do we have to shake on
it to have a contract? What do Paul and I need
to have a contract? He washes my car and I will pay him. Carlos, did you see and hear
Paul and I make this agreement? Then what do we have? We have a witness. A witness is what makes
that contract binding. And this is important with
respect to the preamble. Is God a party to the
contract or is God a witness? There are a lot of constitutions
that have similar language written about the same time. We the people with profound reverence. In constitutional principles,
that makes God a witness. We the people, comma, with
profound reverence for, that is calling God to witness the contract that we make ourselves. And so we the people in
the state of Missouri establish this constitution
just like we the people of the United States. It is not including God as a party. And to take that one step
further, Missouri’s Constitution is very stringent with respect to separation of church and state. We won’t talk about it in
this class, but Article I, section five through seven,
establishes the principles of separation of church and state. And even more importantly
Article IX, section eight, establishes limits with
respect to spending on religious entities by
the state of Missouri. And so Article IX, Article I,
all establish very stringent separation of church and state. So God is in the preamble
but as a witness. And so number four, you know, how does the Missouri Constitution limit the power of government? Well, the answer is,
well, it’s the same way. The most important way
that the US Constitution limits the power of government
is the Bill of Rights. And that is also true for Missouri. So number four, limiting
the power of government in Missouri, the most
important thing will be the Bill of Rights. Now, I think we want to
talk about two things that make Missouri’s
Bill of Rights different than the US Bill of Rights. First, you have to go
back to our discussion of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I think the Anti-Federalists
were Joanie and Carly and the Federalists were Paul and John. But the Anti-Federalists insisted
on having a Bill of Rights and the Federalists
said we don’t need one. Yes, we do. No, we don’t. Yes, we do. No, we don’t. Yes, fine, fine, we’ll
add a Bill of Rights. Are you happy now? So in many ways, the Bill
of Rights, or that aspect of limiting the power of
government is an afterthought in the US Constitution. Now, that is not true for Missouri. It is important to note
that the Bill of Rights in Missouri is first. After the preamble, the Bill
of Rights of Missouri is found. Now, what I think this means
is for the Founding Fathers of Missouri, that the limitations
on the power of government was the most important thing. What’s the most important
thing in the Constitution? It’s the thing that I find first. And in Missouri, it’s the Bill of Rights. It is not an afterthought as
it is in the US Constitution, it’s the most important thing. That being said, what’s
in the Bill of Rights? Well, free speech, freedom
of press, and all those same things that are in the US Bill of Rights. So I think it’s important
to talk about not the things that are the same between
the US and the Missouri Constitution, but to talk about those things that are different. And I’ve just picked out
a random list of things. We’re gonna talk about four
things that are different from the Missouri Constitution
and the US Constitution, then I want to talk about one
other important limitation. Amendment, sorry, section
number 32 in the Bill of Rights. Section 32 of the Bill of Rights includes what’s called, gotta
be sure I get this right, includes the crime victims rights clause, crime victims rights. The crime victims rights
amendment was adopted in 1992 and it is what it says. It provides the victims of
crime with constitutionally protected rights and these
rights fall into a couple different categories, but the first one simply is restitution. If you are the victim of a
crime, the Missouri Constitution guarantees you some form of restitution. It doesn’t specify the
form of restitution, that’s up to the courts to decide, but it grants restitution. You also have the right to be informed. And informed of what you might ask? John is about to say of what. Informed of what? Let’s say you are the victim
of a crime and the person who was convicted of that
crime is up for parole. You have the right to be
informed that the person is up for parole and you have the right, according to this amendment, you have the right to testify
at that parole hearing. So one thing that’s
different about the Missouri Bill of Rights from the US Bill of Rights is the crime victims rights amendment, or section, excuse me, number 32. Another interesting one, and
this will be more interesting for Joanie and Carly
here, is section 22 B. And this has to do with
women and jury duty. Women and jury duty. According to the Missouri
Constitution, section 22 B, women are exempt from jury duty. Isn’t that good news? Now, the question is, why? Why were women exempted from jury duty? Well, where should women be? Alright, we don’t want to answer, no John, I don’t think we want to say that. Let’s put it in reverse. Let’s talk about what’s wrong with that and jump fast forward to this court case, Duren versus Missouri. According to the Missouri Constitution, women are exempt from jury duty. Now, what Missouri had was what’s called an opt-in jury model. An opt-in jury model
says you can be on a jury if you opt-in to the jury pool. But women had to opt-in in
order to be in the jury pool. Well, the United States Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, not Missouri, United States Supreme Court,
in Duren versus Missouri, 1979, said that was unconstitutional. 1979, Missouri’s opt-in
jury formula for women was unconstitutional and at the same time, the Missouri, they threw out the opt-out. You’re in the jury pool,
but women can opt-out of the jury pool. So the case is Duren versus Missouri and the women’s exemption
that’s in the Constitution was deemed unconstitutional, a violation of the US Constitution. Now, Joanie and Carly,
Joanie or Carly are convicted or charged with a felony. And they have a jury. If the exemption from jury
duty stands for women, what are Joanie and
Carly going to be denied? If all I see on the jury
are Paul and John there, then Carly and Joanie
are denied, what is it? Paul? It’s a jury of your peers. If there are no women on
the jury, if the exemption for women stands, then you don’t have, you’re denied a jury of your peers. And so, the United States Supreme Court says that 22 B is unconstitutional. Now, it’s still there. But it is inoperable. Missouri cannot enforce that
because it’s unconstitutional. Now, interestingly also, number 29, increasingly more controversial, section 29, in short, is
the right to be union. The right to be union. There’s two kinds of states, basically. More than two, but we’re
trying, people paint with broad strokes, two categories. There is a union state,
right to work state, and the union state. The right to be union, the
right to organize and bargain collectively shall not be denied. And again, if you’ve been
living in Missouri for a while which most of you have not, which is why you’re in this class, but this is a controversy
with respect to businesses leaving the state and businesses being attracted to the state. Because the Missouri Constitution supports a worker’s right to be union. There is some sentiment that
that needs to be taken out. The last serious attempt
was in the mid-’70s, although there was some
talk in the mid-2000s about removing that provision. But Missouri’s Constitution
has a right to union in it. Now, if you go back to our
discussion of political culture, we talk about Rust Belt and
Missouri being individualistic political culture, you’ll
find this right to be union or the right to organize
and bargain collectively in those individualistic Rust Belt states. That’s very common. So it’s not an unusual
provision and it does in fact fit with Missouri’s political history and Missouri’s political culture. Now, that may be evolving
with respect to politics, democrats and republicans, but it’s there and it’s, of course, very
different than what you have in the US Constitution. The last item from the Constitution, I’m actually gonna read it to you, is from number three, or excuse me, 23, and it’s the right to bear arms. Now of course, the right to bear arms is controversial in and of itself, but the Missouri Constitution
is a little bit different and let me just read it to you. Hang on, let me get to the right page. Section 23, the right
to keep and bear arms. The right of every citizen
to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
person, and property, or when lawfully summoned
to aid the civil power shall not be questioned. Alright, there’s a couple of things. The second amendment, the
right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a
well regulated militia. Missouri’s Constitution
is much more specific about your right to keep and bear arms. And that is specificity
in terms of in defense of home, person, and property. It’s a more well defined
right to keep and bear arms. But the interesting wrinkle
in Missouri in section 23 is the final clause. The final clause says but
this shall not be, I’m sorry. This shall not justify the
wearing of concealed weapons. Section 23 includes, but
this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Now a little bit of history. Proposition B, in 1999, Proposition B in 1999, we talk about propositions,
initiative, initiative and referendum petition. Proposition B in 1999
was written to overturn that aspect, that we should
have the right to keep concealed weapons on our person. But, Proposition B failed. So the voters in Missouri, in 1999, voted to uphold a ban
on concealed weapons. Now, in 2003, 2003, the legislature adopted conceal and carry. In 2003, the legislature
adopted conceal and carry, despite the Constitution’s
clause that says this shall not be interpreted to justify the carrying of concealed weapons. Now, the kicker is 2004. In 2004, the Missouri State
Supreme Court in Brooks versus State, 2004, Brooks versus State, the Missouri State Supreme
Court says that clause which says shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons, doesn’t mean you can’t carry concealed weapons. So in 2004, the Supreme
Court invalidates that clause or reinterprets that clause
in section 23 to allow for the carrying of concealed
weapons in Missouri. Now, is there more? Sure, we could go through a long list. Missouri’s Bill of Rights is quite lengthy and again, quite specific. But this would be sort of a greatest hits. What’s different between the
US Constitution and Missouri? It’s this is a good sampling of the four. But, as we said with the US Constitution, it’s not the only place for limits. There are other limits in
the Missouri Constitution and I really just want to point to one because it’s probably the most important. And that comes from Article
X, and the Hancock Amendment. The Hancock Amendment
can be found basically in sections 20 and 22 and
most people know the Hancock Amendment as the balanced
budget amendment. This is crucial. If you remember a couple years ago, the debate over increasing
the debt ceiling. Well, that doesn’t happen in Missouri because Missouri has to
have a balanced budget. The Hancock Amendment says
Missouri can not spend more than it takes in. It says we have to have a balanced budget. And that’s usually all people remember about the Hancock Amendment. So we write down balanced budget, but that’s not the only thing. The Hancock Amendment
also says that no tax license or fee can be raised
without voter approval. Now, we’ve started to
hammer away at a theme and that theme is democracy. You have the power. And the Hancock Amendment,
the balanced budget part, as we’ve said before,
sort of, it goes back to the fiscal conservatism that’s built in to the Missouri State Constitution. The addition of the tax,
license, and fee approval is a continuation of that democratic theme that we’ve talked about. You have the power. So no tax, license, or fee can be raised without your approval. Drive through Springfield. When the tax is up for
renewal, the little quarter cent penny, you know, this
intersection improvement brought to you by, or we
want you to look around you and see what we’ve done with your money and that’s to get you to renew that tax for the road improvements. It’s in your hands. Again, part of that democratic theme. And so, you know, how
does US Bill of Rights plus a couple other things, how does Missouri do it, Bill of Rights. I would focus on those
things that are different, those four examples that we had. But you definitely need to
remember the Hancock Amendment. That’s probably the single
most important limitation outside of the Bill of Rights. Okay, questions about
basically number four? We move on to part five. Joanie? No, okay. Alright, what’s fifth? Five. Checks and balances. What’s five, what is five? Conflict management. Conflict management. How does the US Constitution
manage conflict? Well, checks and balances. Checks and balances, same thing. Now remember we talked about that, the difference between
separation of powers and checks and balances. The check and balance is
a way to avoid conflict and therefore to manage conflict. So we have conflict management
with checks and balances and also the amendment process. Guess what, same thing. So checks and balances and the amendment process. Now, let’s give the amendment process, we’ll give the amendment
process a little asterisk, or a big asterisk, because
the biggest difference, we said this before,
the biggest difference between the US Constitution
and the Missouri Constitution is you can amend your own constitution. The democracy theme
that we talk about here with respect to the Hancock Amendment is the same one that we talk about here. To manage conflict, you
as a citizen of Missouri can amend your own constitution. And so the conflict
management is the same, checks and balances and
the amendment process, but it’s the difference
between the amendment processes that’s the thing that
you need to remember. Okay, now, last but not least, six. We’ve already said that
the US Constitution didn’t, as originally adopted, define citizenship. Now, I think the question,
I believe it was John asked before, does the US Constitution
define citizenship now and the answer was yes. 18 year old right to vote,
the Civil War amendments and so on, and so I want
to spend some time on how the US, excuse me, how
the Missouri Constitution defines citizenship. And I really wanna focus on
the current Constitution, 1945. How does the Missouri
Constitution define citizenship? And it basically defines
citizenship in four different ways and this is all in
Article VIII, section two, Article VIII, section two. Article VIII, section two
defines citizenship in four ways and I divide these up into easy and hard. Or maybe easy and harder,
however you wanna remember this. The easy ones are residency and age. In order to be able to vote in Missouri, you have to live in Missouri for 30 days. That’s pretty easy. In order to vote in Missouri, you have to be 18 years old. Pretty easy. But, Missouri’s Constitution
goes a little bit farther and adds two other qualifications. The first one is a felony conviction. In Missouri, if you are
convicted of a felony, your right to vote or your
citizenship can be taken away. Now, this is an interesting wrinkle when you compare state constitutions. In Missouri, once you
complete your sentence and whatever probation is afterwards. Let’s say you get five years for something or 10 years for something or 25 years, and then you have X number
of years of probation. Once you complete your entire sentence, then your citizenship is restored. The right to vote is restored. In other states, in other
states, Florida in particular, recent controversy, you have to petition to get your voting rights restored. And in states like Florida,
there are some crimes where you never get your citizenship back. You never get the right to vote back. So Missouri is if you are
convicted of a felony, your right to vote, which
is the easiest way to define citizenship, your right
to vote can be taken away but you would get it back when
your sentence is completed. The second one has to do with
mental competence or capacity. And I’ll probably run out of space here. And these two words, mental
competence and mental capacity are used interchangeably but
it defines mental incompetence or incapacity in basically two ways. One, if you are involuntary,
involuntary confined to a mental institution. Now, this is not a term that
we tend to use as much today but that’s what’s in the Constitution. Your guardianship, I’m
sorry, involuntary confined to mental institutions is number one. The second one if you are
under a full guardianship, and full becomes important
here in just a second, if you are under a full
guardianship by reason of mental capacity, full guardianship
by reason of mental capacity. So it’s really two parts. A, confined to a mental institution and B, the full, I’m
gonna run out of space. The full guardianship. But let’s talk about the
guardianship for just a second. There are full guardianships
and partial guardianships. This has to be a full guardianship. But you can also be under
a guardianship for reasons having nothing to do with mental capacity. It may have to do with health
and physical limitations and you need a legal
guardian for other reasons. So, mental capacity for Missouri
is defined by institution and guardianship, but even
though the Constitution says guardianship by reason of mental capacity, that’s not the end of the issue. In 2007, let me erase over here. In 2007, there was a
challenge to that second part, the guardianship issue,
there was a challenge to the right to vote and
the case is Scaletty, 2007. Scaletty versus Carnahan,
2007, Scaletty versus Carnahan. Now this is Robin Carnahan,
Secretary of State, as we’ll talk about a little bit later. The Secretary of State is responsible for elections in Missouri,
responsible for enforcing and interpreting election laws. Now, Mister Scaletty was
under a full guardianship for reasons of mental incapacity. He was a Kansas City resident who was a paranoid schizophrenic. Paranoid schizophrenic and challenged, this part of the
Constitution was challenged on Mr. Scaletty’s behalf. He was denied the right to vote because of a strict interpretation
of the Constitution. He was under a full guardianship
for reasons of mental capacity, therefore he was
denied the right to vote. He sued and won. The Missouri State Supreme
Court, in 2007 said full guardianship for
reasons of mental incapacity isn’t enough to justify,
isn’t enough to justify the taking away someone’s right to vote. At the end, the court
ordered guardianship, which is defined in the
Constitution, is no longer sufficient to deny
someone the right to vote. So ultimately, the judge of all of this is the Missouri State
Supreme Court and in 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court
argued that Mr. Scaletty’s citizenship was wrongly terminated. And forced the, whatever
district he was in in Kansas City to allow him the right to vote. So, lots of stuff that’s
different between the definition of citizenship in the 1945 Constitution and the US Constitution. And of course, there’s much the same. But, again, focus on these harder ones. Focus on these things
that are in fact different and we’re gonna do a
better job on the exam, which is what is important. I want you to remember the
US Constitutional material, don’t get me wrong, but for test purposes, for test purposes, it’s the
comparison between the two with a focus on the Missouri document. Alright. So those are the purposes
as defined by my good friend Don Lutz, a comparison
of the US Constitution and its purposes to the
Missouri Constitution. Now, Joanie, Carly, any questions? Alright, well thank you very much and we’ll see you next time. Some people would argue that
the limitation of government is the most important
function of constitutionalism. For Missouri, I think a
good case could be made for the importance of
defining citizenship. In class, we discussed
the concept of citizenship as it is currently defined
in the Constitution of 1945. I think it is worth going
back to Missouri’s first two constitutions to
demonstrate the centrality of citizenship in 1820 and 1865. The convention of 1820
adhered to the mandate of the Missouri Compromise
with respect to slavery. Going beyond the compromise,
the convention called upon the legislature to pass
such laws as may be necessary to prevent free negroes and
mulattoes from coming to and settling in the state
under any pretext whatsoever. Given the political
circumstances of the day, it’s not surprising that the
1865 convention reversed this course and passed an
ordinance ending slavery. All persons held in
service or labor as slaves are hereby declared free. But as the 1820 convention went beyond the Missouri Compromise, the
1865 convention went beyond the emancipation of slaves. As punishment for past offenses,
the radical republicans inserted the ironclad oath
into the new Constitution. The oath read in part no
person shall be deemed a qualified voter who has
ever been in armed hostility to the United States
or has ever given aid, comfort, countenance, or
support to persons engaged in any such hostility. While establishing citizenship for blacks and disenfranchising former Confederates, the iron clad oath also
introduced the term bushwhacker into constitutional parlance. With the removal of the
iron clad oath in 1870, the constitutions of
1875 and 1945 focused on the more mundane matters,
the description of offices, and the respective
powers of the legislative and executive branches.

3 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *