In many ways Octavius Catto was the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Civil War era. Like Dr. King,  Catto was the son of a civically active reverend, both men had a great passion for justice in  America, and they were both gifted students.

Octavius enrolled in Philadelphia’s elite private academy for free blacks, the Institute for Colored Youth (I.C.Y.). After graduating Octavius began teaching at I.C.Y.; as a professor where he cultivated his skills as an orator and continued to advocate for education and liberty.

Later, Catto became part of a coalition of prominent free blacks and successful white business leaders who desired to see the Union prevail in the Civil War. The coalition was instrumental in persuading the federal government to allow colored men to enlist and take up arms. Later in life he would become a Major in the National Guard’s Black regiment the Fifth Brigade.

After the Civil War, Catto’s concerns turned from fighting wars to ensuring the emancipated masses could enjoy the freedom promised to them by politicians and eventually guaranteed by the Constitution. Education was a large component of Catto’s message. He urged his students to move south and teach their recently freed brethren. Many heeded his call and his words were circulated as a recruiting tool: “It is the duty of every man to the extent of his interest and means, to provide for the immediate improvement of the four or five millions of ignorant and previously dependent laborers who will be thrown upon society in the reorganization of the Union.”

At home in Philadelphia, Catto focused on issues that struck at the heart of the local community. Though no formal law existed, blacks often were not allowed to ride on the private horse-drawn street rail cars that crisscrossed the city grid. The treatment of Black female passengers and black Union veterans was of particular offense. Frederick Douglass, the famous intellectual and first black guest in the White House, was himself thrown off a streetcar on two separate occasions. As a member of the Car Committee, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania’s Equal Rights League, Catto and two colleagues drafted and submitted legislation to the state legislature.

The streetcar desegregation bill was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor John W. Geary on March, 1865. In a letter congratulating Catto and his colleagues, the Republican legislators wrote, “We have found you here every week from [the bill’s] presentation to its final passage, earnestly and persistently working for it. This bill is essentially your own.” Catto and his organization achieved this feat prior to passage of the 15^th Amendment.

It is in the fight for streetcar desegregation where the comparison between Dr. King and Catto becomes most striking. Not only did both men help lead successful desegregation efforts through public campaigns, but both men successfully lobbied the government to pass laws to make discrimination illegal.

In a tragic fit of irony, Catto lost his life on Election Day in 1871. A riot broke out in Philadelphia making it unsafe for people to walk alone in the streets. Catto wanted to avoid the commotion, as he was a well know figure and any venom about blacks voting would likely be directed at him if he were to be recognized. Ultimately, he was fatally shot by an assailant who escaped into the streets; despite the efforts of some white witnesses who gave chase to the gunman. It is unclear if Catto was walking to or from a polling station when he was shot, but nevertheless, the Election Day shooting of Catto is almost literary in its irony. Sadly, this is another similarity Catto shares with Dr. King—an untimely death at the hands of an assassin; a promising life cut short.

Much of the information in this post was gathered from Tasting Freedom: Octavius Catto and the Battle for Equality in Civil War America by Daniel Biddle and Murray Dubin.

What could be more frightening than violations of our constitutional rights? But is everything that appears to be a violation actually one? Join us as we explore some current constitutional issues. We hope you enjoy our Bill of Frights!

Of all the amendments to the Constitution, the First is, in many respects, the one whose meaning seems most plain. Its protection of speech appears unequivocal: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But some people wonder and worry if this prohibition against speech regulation has been observed by Congress and other government officials.

Free speech cases have a long history of litigation and Supreme Court precedent. And while the current trend in Supreme Court decisions supports a robust view of speech rights, regulations of speech continue. Earlier this year, the city council of a small town in Arkansas attempted to ban citizens from forming organizations without city approval. The ban would have even made it illegal to have four people meet in a residence to discuss issues the council was considering. The implications for freedom of assembly as well as speech concerned many, and the ordinance was later repealed.

Another interesting case of speech regulation comes in the Stolen Valor Act. The Act gives government a role in regulating speech based on the truth-value of the statement. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Stolen Valor Act—legislation making it illegal for an individual to lie about receiving military medals of distinction from the government. The act states: “Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

In July, 2008 Xavier Alvarez was fined $5,000 and sentenced to three years of probation for uttering these words at a public meeting in 2007: “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez had actually never received the congressional medal.

Alvarez’s case found its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010. The court overturned Alvarez’s sentence. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Kozinski stated that: “If false factual statements are unprotected, then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he’s Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won’t hurt a bit.”

In October of this year, the Supreme Court announced that it will be reviewing Alvarez’s case.

So what do you think? Will federal, state, and local governments continue to attempt to regulate speech? Should the government have a role in punishing fallacious statements?

When accused of a crime, every citizen possesses the right to a fair trial–some details of what a fair trial encompasses are laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But some worry that mandatory minimum-sentencing guidelines are shifting the scales of justice and placing too much power in the hands of prosecutors, thus making it challenging for citizens to receive a fair trial.

The past few decades have seen a steady decrease in the number of felony cases brought to trial. In the 1970s, the ratio of felony cases that made it to trial was about one in 12. Today, some estimates put the number at fewer than one in 40. Observers of the criminal justice system partly attribute this shift to sentencing laws prosecutors leverage when negotiating with individuals accused of a crime.

There are practical reasons that explain the criminal justice systems increase use of plea bargains including a near three-fold increase in felony case loads. With courts around the country clogged up with cases, is it reasonable to expect every single case will find its way to trial?  In addition, the idea that a plea bargain–a voluntary agreement (or rather contract) between the accused and a prosecutor–could be construed as potentially subverting or undermining the right to a fair trial is itself problematic. If the accused desires to have a trail, then a trial of some form will commence.

Still, some contend that the “choice” aspect of plea bargains is not as robust as it may appear. In an interview with PBS’s Frontline, Yale law professor John Langbein said, “the problem with choice arguments is that they neglect the main dynamic of plea bargaining which is the pressure that the prosecutor puts on you to do it his way. Plea bargain works by threat. What the prosecutor says to a criminal defendant in plea bargaining is, ‘Surrender your right to jury trial, or if you go to trial and are convicted of an offense, we will see to it that you are punished twice. Once for the offense, and once for having had the temerity to exercise your right to jury trial.’ That is a coercive system.”

In 2004, Judge William Young, a federal magistrate in Boston, lambasted the criminal justice system in a 177-page decision in which he said, “the focus of our entire criminal justice system has shifted away from trials and juries and adjudication to a massive system of sentence bargaining that is heavily rigged against the accused.”

Despite these complaints, some experts point to the notion that the problems surrounding plea bargains are procedural in nature. In a 2003 article for Regulation Magazine, Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation wrote, “But there are sufficient justifications for plea bargaining. Its flaws are procedural, not constitutional, and it needs reform, not abolition.” And even though the Framers did not include plea bargains in the Constitution (only jury trials are mentioned), that, in of itself, does not prove the mechanism unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of plea bargains on several occasions. In Santobello v. New York (1971), the Court found that plea bargains are not only constitutional, but “an essential component of the administration of justice” and that “[so long as it is] properly administered, [plea bargaining] is to be encouraged.”

The most famous Supreme Court case on plea bargains is North Carolina v. Alford (1970). In that case, the Court found plea bargains to be constitutional regardless of whether the accused only plead guilty to avoid the possibility of a harsher sentence at trial. (In Alford, a defendant who claimed innocence pleaded to a sentence of life in order to avoid a mandatory death penalty sentence that would have resulted had he lost the trial.)

But critics of the plea bargaining method still see a problem with a system that makes going to trial seem so unreasonable the innocent people will plead out to crimes they didn’t commit. What do you think? Does the combination of harsh sentencing laws and plea bargains undermine the accused right to a fair trial?

What could be more frightening than violations of our constitutional rights? But is everything that appears to be a violation actually one? This week we’ll explore some current constitutional issues ripped from the headlines, and delve into some questions about whether rights are being violated. We hope you enjoy our Bill of Frights!

“For every man’s house is looked upon by the law to be his castle of defense and asylum …” Sir William Blackstone, an english jurist from the 18th century, said these words in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England. Though not an American, Blackstone’s words  are reflected in American  law. But some  believe the principle that one’s home is respected by legal institutions is under fire in the United States through the abuse and overuse of eminent domain.

The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment empowers the national government to seize property needed for “public use,” but it also restricts government by requiring it to provide just compensation to the owner. The Supreme Court has applied these restrictions to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet from 1998 through 2002, the Institute for Justice documented 10,000 properties in 41 states where eminent domain was used to transfer property from private citizens to private developers whose planned projects promise to boost the local economy.

The proposed redevelopment projects vary in scope and rationale. Some are done in the name of urban renewal and the cleaning up of “blighted” neighborhoods. In an example from 2003 , New York City seized property in Brooklyn so that Bruce Ratner could build a stadium and bring his New Jersey Nets basketball franchise into the city. At the heart of the disputes of such projects is the definition of the Fifth’s Amendment’s words, “public use”.

In 2005, the Supreme Court took up this very issue in Kelo v. City of New London. The City of New London, Connecticut had on its desks a plan that involved a private developer who promised to create 3,169 jobs and bring in $1.2 million in annual tax revenue. Standing in the way of development were several New London homes, including one owned by Susette Kelo. Kelo challenged the constitutionality of the taking. In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with New London, holding that: “The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause.” In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens took note of court precedent that eminent domain takings a) need not examine a “blighted” are building-by-building, b) can rest on the states responsibility to “social and economic evils of a land oligopoly”, and c) the eschewing of “rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.”

The Kelo decision brought fourth a firestorm of criticism. Justice Scalia, who voted in the minority and who is known for his originalist approach to the Constitution, stated recently that the Kelo ruling stood with Dred Scott as one of the few “mistakes” the Court had made in estimating its ability to “stretch beyond the text of the Constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance.” Hyperbole aside, Kelo makes it easier for state and local governments to seize property from citizens and transfer the land deeds to private developers who promise economic development in economically depressed areas. So what do you think? Was the Supreme Court correct to interpret the Fifth Amendment as it did? Should these types of  takings be allowed?

Under what circumstances are police allowed to enter the homes of private citizens? In most cases, a search warrant issued by a judge is needed for any encounter where law enforcement requires access to a private residence. But law enforcement is also bringing to bear another tool–warrantless searches.

Warrantless searches are often a necessary part of combating crime–and particularly those offenders who have opportunities to destroy evidence. When exigent circumstances arise, law enforcement argues, in situations either pertaining to officer and public safety or to the destruction of evidence, police officers must be allowed the flexibility to enter a home without a warrant.

In Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that law enforcement can enter a home without a warrant given the existence of exigent circumstances. The Court concluded that the warrantless search might still be legal even if law enforcement itself brings about the exigent circumstances (i.e. a knock on a door causes a stirring inside a house and that stirring causes the officers to assume a destruction of evidence is taking place). Justice Alito, writing for the majority,  reasoned that “a rule that precludes the police from making a warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence whenever their conduct causes the exigency would unreasonably shrink the reach of this well-established exception to the warrant requirement.”

In her dissent of the King ruling, Justice Ginsberg stated that she found no reason to “allow an expedient knock to override the warrant requirement. Instead, I would accord that core requirement of the Fourth Amendment full respect.”

Ginsberg  referred in her dissent to Johnson v. United States (1948), a case similar to King. In that case, the Court stated: “The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is … a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not a policeman … If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of [any] case in which [a warrant] should be required.”

Compounding Justice Ginsberg’s dissent are recent news items on botched or mistaken searches conducted by departments around the country. Mistakes happen and, unfortunately, mistakes around searches often entail deadly consequences for both officers and citizens. One serious example happened in May of this year when a raid on the wrong residence lead to the death of Jose Guerena, an ex-Marine who served two tours in Iraq.

As many argue, there are certainly circumstances that require the most temporary shedding of aspects of due process protections. But some argue that when you couple Fourth Amendment considerations with the real potential for mistakes around the country, the need to examine the scope of warrantless searches must be taken seriously. What do you think? Does the existence of warrantless searches fundamentally circumvent the Fourth Amendment?

Philadelphia –

As the convention pressed into the late days of July, debate turned to the revised Virginia Plan’s resolutions on the Executive Branch.

The ninth resolution proposed that “a National Executive be instituted to consist of a single person, to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of seven years…”. All delegations present agreed that the Executive ought to be composed of a single individual, but other issues raised deep differences between delegates. These differences were chiefly on key principles of republicanism and separation of powers.

Regarding the means of election, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania vigorously opposed election by the national Legislature. Though one of the most aristocratic delegates by background and temperament, Morris feared that election by the Legislature would violate the principle of separation of powers, making the Executive a mere “creature” of that branch. He thought the judgment of the people as a whole would be far more likely to result in the election of a “man of distinguished character,” or of “continental reputation”.

But outside of his fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson, Morris found little support for direct popular election for the Executive. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina voiced his opinion that it is better to have a few “active and designing men” make this choice. George Mason of Virginia likened Morris’ proposal to asking a blind man to name the colors before him.  The convention shot down Morris’ proposal and affirmed the original—though this solution would only be temporary.

Debate on issues of the term of and eligibility for office was also inconclusive. Momentarily postponing discussion of term length, delegates rejected a proposal to make the Executive ineligible for re-election. On the whole, delegates viewed re-election as an incentive that would drive the Executive to perform his proper duties. But the idea of imposing term limits on the Executive was dropped in favor of a proposal by Virginia’s James McClurg to strike the 7 years term and insert “during good behavior.”

Because the Executive was to be elected by the national Legislature, and because the proposal for making the Executive ineligible for re-election had been rejected, McClurg  – joined by Morris – thought that the only way to ensure a proper separation of powers was to allow the Executive to remain in office, effectively, for life. Madison concurred, drawing an analogy between the Judicial and Executive branches, both of which he believed required complete separation from the power of the Legislature to avoid being absorbed by it.

Others did not accept this logic. Roger Sherman thought the measure redundant. Re-election logically entails that the Executive is behaving properly—especially since the national legislative, the few “active and designing men,” are overseeing the selection process. Mason also bristled at the proposal of an Executive that would serve during good behavior, denouncing that such a policy would lead to the re-establishment of a hereditary monarchy in the new Republic within the lifetime of his children or grandchildren, if not his own. Surely no state, he lectured, “had so far revolted from Republican principles as to have the least bias” toward that proposal.

With the specter of monarchy having been raised, and with Mason having clearly challenged the commitment to republican principles of some of the convention’s leading members – including Madison and Morris – the delegations agreed unanimously to re-open discussion about the Executive. Luther Martin had moved to reconsider the eligibility requirement, in hopes of limiting the Executive to just one term of office. Gouverneur Morris took this opportunity, however, to rebut to Mason and make a case for extensive Executive power. “It has been a maxim in Political Science,” he explained, challenging Mason’s republican ideal, “that Republican Government is not adapted to a large extent of Country”. He reasoned that in a republican government – where the people are represented by the Legislative Branch – the Executive Branch is necessarily weak, and made a case that the Executive Branch “should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes, against Legislative tyranny.”

Morris continued to advocate that the Executive keep office during good behavior, but barring that proposed that the Executive be elected directly by the people. Madison (perhaps slightly chastened by Mason) concurred in recommending the Executive be selected by “the people at large,” downplaying his earlier suggestion that the Executive hold office during good behavior. Elbridge Gerry, who continued to display a knack for compromise, stated that both election by the national Legislature and by the people had disadvantages. He proposed a third way – a committee of electors chosen by state Executives. Oliver Ellsworth accepted the idea of electors, but suggested that state Legislatures select them. This compromise was easily approved, as was eligibility for re-election and – for a short time, at least – a six-year term.

Philadelphia -  Though 11 days late and still many members short, the Federal Convention finally secured the arrival of enough participants to begin discussing revisions to our Articles of Confederation. The Convention’s original slated start of May 14^th saw only 2 delegations arrive in Philadelphia. Since then, 7 more delegations have completed their sojourns to the nation’s most populous city. By week’s end, 11 of the 12 participating state delegations will be in the city.

Electing a Convention Leadership

The first order of business addressed by the delegates was electing the Convention’s president. General George Washington of Virginia received unanimous support to fill the position. Mr. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania and Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina initiated the push for Washington to be named president, though the blessing of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, the only delegate whose stature can equal Washington’s, surely helped secure the unanimous election.

After Washington’s election the delegates took up more menial tasks, such as the selection of Major William Jackson as Secretary and the creation of the Committee on Rules. Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney, and George Wythe were the three delegates chosen to serve on the Committee on Rules. These members will propose baseline rules governing what delegates can and cannot do during the Convention.

The Rules Governing the Convention

The Committee on Rules will offer its proposal on the second day, May 28^th. It will turn out that many of these rules will be procedural, though not all of them. At the suggestion of Pierce Butler, the Committee will consider additional rules—including one about publication of Convention proceedings. The issue of rules will finally be settled on the Conventions’ third day, with the members agreeing to keep secret the events of the Convention. With the rules agreed to, the delegates will pursue settling main business.

Randolph’s 15 Resolutions – The Virginia Plan

Having arrived in Philadelphia 2 weeks prior, the Virginia delegation was prepared to drive the Convention’s agenda. Virginia’s Governor, Edmund Randolph, staked out a position that some delegates saw as radical, arguing that the Convention should begin not by reviewing the Articles of Confederation, but by inquiring first “into the properties, which [a federal] government ought to possess.” He then presented a list of 15 resolutions, the major effect of which was to propose a national government superior in power to the state governments – including giving the national legislature power to veto state laws, and to use force to coerce the states to fulfill their duties to the national government.

When the Convention re-convened on May 30, chaos erupted. Not only would the Committee of the Whole not vote on Randolph’s resolutions, they would not vote on a series of 3 propositions stating, 1) that a confederation would not accomplish the objects of promoting the common defense, protection of liberty, and the general welfare; 2) that treaties among the states would not promote those objects; and 3) that a national government consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch should be established. Some feared that Randolph’s proposal would abolish the state governments altogether. Others thought such a proposal exceeded the powers of the Convention. Six state delegations accepted the third proposition, and the Convention proceeded to another thorny debate – about how representatives to the national Legislature should be apportioned.

This spring marks the start of the 2012 Presidential election campaign. In early April, President Barack Obama announced his reelection bid for the White House. Tonight, May 5, the first official GOP Presidential debate will take place in South Carolina. America’s electoral system is quite unique and often quite confusing. Although our country is frequently described as a democracy, the US is a republic: a system of governance where citizens determine who will hold office. The President is selected by the people in each of the states through a system known as the Electoral College.

Throughout America’s 235 years, the Electoral College has been subject to various stresses and controversies and most elections go off without a hitch. The system was designed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and though the spirit of Wilson’s system survives today, the Electoral College has been subjected to revisions as problems arose (most prominently the 12th Amendment). As part of our Presidents & the Constitution curriculum, the Institute created a video explaining the history of America’s electoral system.

As we head forth into this election season, be sure to use this video to help equip your students with a proper understanding of the history, benefits, and shortcomings of America’s electoral system. Does the Electoral College create a democratic process that respects both the people and the states? What are some ways the system could be improved, if at all?

Ady Steinbach, a junior from Johns Burroughs School in St. Louis, Missouri, took 1^st place in the Great Plains region. Ady chose freedom of speech as her civic value and felt Martin Luther King, Jr. most embodied the American character. In her essay Ady wrote, “Studying American history … has ensured that I will exercise my valuable right to free speech in the future as my political beliefs and involvement expand.”

Jacqueline Markey, a sophomore from Rochester Adams High School in Rochester Hills, Michigan, took 1^st in the Great Lakes region. Courage is the civic value Jacqueline chose to write about in her essay and she felt the individual who most personified the American character was James Meredith. Meredith was the first African American student to attend the University of Mississippi. For Jacqueline, part of what makes America great is that “when one courageous voice speaks out for what is right, even if it means thousands turn against him, the course of history can be changed.”

Ady and Jacqueline were joined by Noah Lingwall from Clarion, Pennsylvania. Noah took 1^st in the Mid-Atlantic region and is a sophomore at Clarion Area Jr.-Sr. High School. Noah chose individual liberty as his civic value and Harry Truman as the person who best typified that principle American character. “The passion for individual liberty that our Founding Fathers laid out … is alive and well today,” Noah wrote. “President Harry Truman exemplified this passion through his courage in the 20^th century.”

Sarah Hutchins from Hope, Rhode Island is the 1^st place winner in the New England region. Sarah’s sister Haley won 3^rd place in the 2009-2010 Essay Contest. Sarah, who is home schooled by her mother Ellen (featured in picture on the left), chose equality of opportunity as her core civic value. In her essay, Sarah expressed gratitude for those who struggled to obtain equal opportunity, specifically Abigail Adams, who Sarah chose as the person who best exemplifies this American characteristic. “I am thankful for influential people like Abigail Adams, who strived for equality of opportunity in the Founding of this country,” she wrote, “and for documents that support equality, like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

In the South-Atlantic region, Zachary Thompson took 1^st place. Zachary, who is from Fleetwood, North Carolina, attends Ashe County High School and is in his junior year. Zachary chose individualism as his civic value because he feels individualism is what stops Americans from being “bound to serfdom and slavery.” Zachary noted further that, “Since 1776, American culture has been the forerunning example of the power and virtue of individualism.” Zachary picked Murray Rothbard as the American who best illustrates this characteristic.

Ashlee Smith, from Kuttawa, Kentucky, took home 1^st place in the Mid-South region. Ashlee, who chose justice as her core civic value, is junior at Lyon County High School. For Ashlee, Thomas Jefferson is the American who best represents and grounds a sense of justice. In her essay Ashlee wrote, “ The importance of justice can be seen through the enduring actions of men like Thomas Jefferson, and the positive impacts of Founding documents such as the Bill of Rights.” (In the picture on the left, Ashlee is joined by Robert Testwuide, Bill of Rights Institute Board Member, John Stossel, and Juan Williams).

Lea Sedwick is the winner in the South Central Region. Lea hails from Kennedale, Taxes and is a senior at Grace Preparatory Academy. Lea’s teacher, Nancie Hall, has had a student place in every Being an American Essay Contest since 2007. For Lea, equality stood out as a pinnacle civic value because it “is the foundation on which our republican form of government was built.” Lea chose Thomas Jefferson as the person who best demonstrates this principle and she credited him and the other Founders deriving from equality the idea that government power rests in the people’s consent for “if all equal, no man can establish rule over another without his permission.” (In the picture on the left, Lea is joined by her classmate and 2nd place winner, Payton Ten Hagen (left), her teacher, Nancie Hall (center)).

Michael Tharratt, a junior at Oak Ridge High School, placed 1^st in the Pacific region. Michael calls El Dorado Hills, California his hometown. In his essay, Michael wrote about self-reliance as a core American civic value. “Dependency is a rot hidden at the core of any civilization … the cure for dependence, however, is at the heart of American ideals: self-reliance; the ability to prosper and forward oneself through faith in oneself, and through one’s own actions.” Michael chose Benjamin Franklin as the person who best embodies the American character. Michael is featured on the left with his teacher, Matthew Hodgins.

Heidi Sorensen took home 1^st place in the Mountain region. Heidi is a senior from Gunnison Valley High School in Gunnison, Utah. Heidi considers persistence is a civic value that grounds so much of what it means to be American. In her essay, Heidi wrote, “I believe that if we are persistent through whatever comes, we will become a stronger and more united nation. If we persevere, we will always have success.” For Heidi, Abraham Lincoln best personifies this value.

Congratulations to all the winners of the Being an American Essay Contest! Check out more of their essays and pictures of their time in D.C.!

It is difficult to overstate the task the Founding Fathers faced at the Constitutional Convention. One fundamental aspect of society at the forefront of the Founders minds was money—the economic medium of exchange. Prior to money, barter was the main vehicle of trade. For example, a carpenter who wanted some apples would have to locate an apple farmer who needed some woodwork for his home.

What counts as money varies depending on what commodities are valuable to that society. In colonial Virginia, bank-like warehouses stored tobacco and issued per-pound receipts that were in turn used as “money” in local markets. The receipts came to represent the amount of tobacco the individual had stored away. (This form of “deposit banking” can be traced all the way back to 8^th century China!) Coin monies were also widely circulated—with some particular coins being used in trades around the globe.

Money was a well established concept by the time the Founders started crafting the Constitution in 1787. In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, who was generally skeptical of banking institutions, recognized the importance of money. He argued for a decimal-based coinage system for the United States in a pamphlet titled Notes on the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of Coinage in the United States. And indeed, the Constitution gave Congress the power to coin (create) and regulate the values and weights of foreign and domestic monies. The fifth clause of the Article I, Section 8 gives Congress this power as well as the power to prosecute counterfeiters.

Despite Congress’s new power, coin circulation and values was not immediately uniform throughout the colonies. Though Congress ordered the creation of the first mint in 1792, the Spanish Dollar (also known as a “piece of eight”) remained legal tender and widely circulated within the United States until 1857 when the Coinage Act officially ended the Spanish Dollar’s reign in America.

The Constitution gives clear instruction on the authority to mint coins, but is silent on the issuance of paper money. In England in the early 1600’s, wealthy people began leaving their gold in the hands of goldsmiths—people with the capacity to store large quantities of the precious metal. In return the goldsmith would issue a receipt which became “as good as gold.” This practice eventually found its way to the United States and the receipts began to be known as “bank notes.”

Since the Constitution granted no specific authority, private bank notes competed with government notes in the market. Inflationary practices existed on both sides as banks failed to resist the temptation to print notes that had no backing in deposits. But since no paper currency had the privilege of a legal mandate, the inflated notes of the poorly managed banks just stopped being circulated as people began to view them as worthless. Though no centralized force controlled paper money, stabilizing agents did emerge. The Suffolk Bank system is a great example how some private banks standardized the “value” of paper money.

The United States government began printing paper money early 1860s. The Union needed to finance the Civil War and began issuing “greenbacks” to pay its bills. With the Legal Tender Act, Congress authorized the Treasury to create this money and eventually created the official paper money printing agency (the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) in the late 1870s. Several Supreme Court cases challenged this action of Congress. In Hepburn v. Griswold (1869) the Court ruled paper money unconstitutional, but just a year later the Court overturned Hepburn in Knox v. Lee (1870) and Parker v. Davis (1870). The court reaffirmed the constitutionality of paper money several years later in Julliard v. Greenman (1884).

In 1913 Congress vested all power to produce paper notes in the Federal Reserve. Despite its name, the Federal Reserve is actually a private institution set apart from the government. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in hopes of stabilizing the somewhat tumultuous bank industry. Over time, the value of Federal Reserve notes has declined. Initially Federal Reserve notes were tied to gold, but that relationship was tenuously severed during the Great Depression and completely severed in 1971. Money underwent another transformation as technology advanced. Many transactions today are done in the digital realm, with bytes of information being the only things that change.

Since the Constitution does not specifically grant authority over paper money (let alone digital dollars), some people wonder if aspects of our monetary system are unconstitutional. One state-senator from South Carolina has even called on his state legislature to study whether the Palmetto State should create its own currency. Do you believe Congress should have issued an amendment concerning the issuing of paper money? Or does paper money fit into Congress’ enumerated power, including the Necessary and Proper Clause?