Interpreting the Constitution Case Studies

Case Study A: Flag Desecration Amendment  

 Texas v. Johnson (1989)  

In 1984, Gregory Johnson burned an American flag outside of Dallas City Hall as a form of protest. He was arrested and charged under a Texas law that banned desecrating the flag. His case reached the Supreme Court, where a 5-4 majority ruled in Johnson’s favor in the case of Texas v. Johnson (1989). They determined that flag-burning was a form of symbolic speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The ruling determined that the Texas law along with laws in 47 other states that banned flag desecration violated the Constitution.   

  

Public Opposition and Congress’ Response  

 Many Americans disagreed with the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, as did their representatives in Congress. After the ruling, the House of Representatives and Senate passed a federal law outlawing the desecration of the flag, which went into effect after President George H.W. Bush chose neither to sign nor veto the law. A case quickly reached the Supreme Court again after another protestor was charged with violating the law, and the same majority ruled the federal law to also be unconstitutional.   

Members of Congress knew the way to bypass the Supreme Court’s ruling and assert its own constitutional powers was to pass a constitutional amendment. The House of Representatives passed an amendment with the necessary two-thirds vote that read, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” However, the Senate vote fell one vote short of its necessary two-thirds vote. While the amendment was ultimately never passed despite significant popular support, the events demonstrated Congress flexing its powers in nearly amending the Constitution to overturn an unpopular Supreme Court decision.  

 

Case Study B: President Andrew Jackson’s Veto  

The National Bank Debate  

One of the most intense disagreements in the early days of the United States was whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to make a national bank.  

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and regulate interstate trade, but it does not say anything explicitly about a national bank. Some argued, led by Alexander Hamilton, that the Necessary and Proper Clause, which states that Congress has the power to pass laws that will help it carry out the explicit powers it was given, gave Congress the power to create a national bank because a bank would help Congress tax and regulate interstate trade. Others, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” restricted Congress from making a national bank since it was not explicitly granted the power in the enumerated powers of Congress listed in Article I, section 8.  

The Second National Bank    

President Washington ultimately read the Constitution as giving the power to make the bank, and he signed a law that Congress passed doing so in 1791. A Second National Bank was created in 1816 after the first one’s charter expired, and the Supreme Court affirmed Congress had the power to make a national bank in the landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). In 1832, Congress voted to extend the charter for the Second National Bank. President Andrew Jackson believed the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution in McCulloch and that Congress did not have the authority to create a bank. He vetoed the congressional bill and wrote a message explaining his decision. His message below highlighted his belief in the importance of each branch interpreting the Constitution when exercising its authority, and the veto was an example of the executive checking the legislature.  

Andrew Jackson’s Veto Message, 1832  

Text	Vocabulary and Context
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court…Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled…	advocates: supporters      precedent: previous decisions            acquiescence: agreement
The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision…

   

  

Case Study C: The Watergate Scandal 
  

The Watergate Scandal  

In 1972, a group of men were arrested after breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. In the coming months, evidence came out that the men were tied to the Nixon administration and were working to find information that could help President Richard Nixon be re-elected. This controversy was known as the Watergate Scandal. Investigators from the Justice Department found out that there were secret recording devices in the Oval Office and asked Nixon to hand over the tapes as part of its investigation. Nixon refused, arguing that as president he had constitutional authority to withhold information from judicial investigations in the name of national security.   

  

Nixon v. United States (1974)  

The controversy over if the president was immune from needing to give evidence over to a judicial investigation reached the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision in the case of Nixon v. United States (1974), the Court ruled that the executive did not have such sweeping powers that allowed him to be above a judicial investigation. It ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes.   

 

Congressional Impeachment  

In addition to the Supreme Court stepping in to check a sweeping claim of executive authority, Congress also moved to assert its constitutional powers. The House of Representatives began a process to impeach Nixon months before the Court case. It interpreted that Nixon had exceeded his limits on executive power, citing an obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Nixon knew that he had lost a lot of support even from members of his own party and soon resigned from office. Both the Supreme Court and Congress exercised their constitutional powers when they saw the president act in a way that they believed violated limits on executive power.