- [Female Narrator] Your support helps us bring you programs you love.

Go to wyomingpbs.org, click on support, and become a sustaining member or an annual member.

It's easy and secure.

Thank you.

- [Male Narrator 1] The Constitution of the United States is the fundamental law of our federal system of government and a landmark document of the Western world.

It's the oldest written national constitution still in use.

It's the Constitution that defines the principle organs of our government, their jurisdictions, and the basic rights of citizens.

Members of the Sheridan High School We The People Team celebrate the Constitution next on "Wyoming Chronicle."

(dramatic music) - [Male Narrator 2] This program was funded in part by a grant from Newman's Own Foundation, working to nourish the common good by donating all profits from Newman's Own food and beverage products to charitable organizations that seek to make the world a better place.

More information is available at newmansownfoundation.org.

Funding for this program is made possible in part by the Wyoming Humanities Council, helping Wyoming take a closer look at life through the humanities, thinkwy.org, and by the members of the Wyoming PBS Foundation.

Thank you for your support.

- [Sally] Good morning, I'm Sally Umber from the Daughters of the American Revolution Sheridan Chapter.

We have three lineage societies in Sheridan.

Besides the DAR, we have the Society of Daughters of 1812 and The National Society Colonial Dames of America, all of whom share common missions of historic preservation and education, and all of whom celebrate their ancestors who gave so much to establish the USA.

The document is the Constitution, which you guys all know well.

That document is the oldest still living Constitution across the world.

It sets forth the duties of government by we the people and the rights established for each one of us.

It embodies high ideals and a framework with which we have been able to live more successfully in.

When its standards are not met, we suffer the short and long-term consequences of that.

In short, we want to celebrate the 240th anniversary of this remarkable document crafted by our forefathers who had studied hard and worked in ancient forms of government and the government of their day to provide us with a better constitution.

What better way we thought than to showcase the wonderful award-winning We The People Program from our very own Sheridan High School - Welcome to Sheridan High School.

My name is Mike Thomas, and I teach American government and politics as well as coach the Sheridan High School We The People Team.

Before we begin, I would like to share some information with you about the Center for Civic Education and the We The People program.

The Center for Civic Education is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education organization that administers national and international civic education programs.

The center's flagship civic education program, We the People: The citizen and the Constitution was developed in 1987 and adopted by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution chaired by Chief Justice, Warren E. Berger as the principal education program for the federal constitution's bicentennial.

The success of the program at the Bicentennial Commission led Congress continuing the program through the US Department of Education from 1993 to 2011 as an authorized program for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Is a simulated congressional hearing in which students testify before a panel of judges acting as Members of Congress.

Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.

The simulated congressional hearing not only deepens student knowledge of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It also binds important 21st century workplace skills and dispositions, such as working cooperatively as a team, public speaking, managing conflict, and reaching consensus.

So without further delay, please enjoy the following examples from Sheridan High School's We The People students.

Unit one.

The American War is over, but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution.

To what extent, if any, did revolutionary principles influence constitution making during the founding period?

What problems, if any, does the principle of consent present when creating or amending constitutions?

To what extent, if any are revolutionary principles evident in modern times?

- "Give me liberty or give me death."

This quote from Patrick Henry demonstrates the revolutionary belief that natural rights are worth fighting for.

In order to prevent these rights, protect these rights America needed to create a constitution that would prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.

Primarily, the First Amendment to the Constitution secured political and religious freedoms.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Additionally, the founders emphasized separation of powers, which can be seen in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution.

Furthermore, a system of checks and balances was established to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over.

For example, both houses of Congress must vote to enact all laws, the president can veto legislation, and the Supreme Court can rule laws unconstitutional as they see fit.

To further protect revolutionary principles, voting rights were protected in the 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments to ensure popular sovereignty.

Likewise, Article IV, as well as the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, establishes a system of federalism to preserve the state's rights, while still granting the federal government supreme authority.

According to Reagan, as government expands, liberty contracts.

Vice versa, if government is limited, liberty and the voice of the people expands.

Moreover, Article 22 of the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

Across history, beliefs, and nations, it is agreed upon that the power of the government comes from the people."

To illustrate, Locke wrote, "No one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent."

Consequently, the Founders agreed in the Declaration of Independence that "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Additionally, consent is equally important when amending the Constitution.

Although the people are not directly involved in amending the United States Constitution, the people are involved in some state amendment processes.

For example, the Wyoming Constitution Section One states, "For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

This statement also indicates that people have power to refuse documents proposed by governments.

For instance, in 2016, an amendment to allow the legislature to authorize the investment of public employee retirement system funds and permanent state funds, inequities, such as stocks or shares in private or public companies was proposed and passed by two thirds of the legislature, but was defeated by a referendum in the proceeding popular election.

Thus, the Wyoming Constitution requires the voters to further approve amendments after the legislature passes them to ensure consent of the governed is adequately upheld.

Equally important, revolutionary principles are seen in modern times.

For instance, the idea of popular sovereignty was seen in the 2020 Presidential Election.

To illustrate, mail-in votes took place to allow the largest majority of eligible citizens to vote.

portal.ct.gov wrote, "more than 650,000 voters cast their vote by absentee ballot."

Additionally, the use of peaceful protest found in the First Amendment has also taken place in society today.

For instance, Fox 8, Time, and CNN have all recorded about 93% of Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful.

Furthermore, recently, the concept of checks and balances is apparent with bill HR 6395.

This bill was proposed in the House of Representatives and was vetoed by President Trump.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate overrode the presidential veto, and the bill was passed.

Although, once the bills are passed, the rule of law is upheld, as stated in Article Six, "This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Ultimately, as Thomas Jefferson stated, "man is not made for the state, but state for the man," and it derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed.

- Unit two.

What are the major disagreements among the 55 delegates during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and how were they resolved?

What issues, if any were not resolved, and what were the consequences?

What changes if any, should be made to the Constitution?

- Debates over slaves counting for representation caused Elbridge Gerry to remark, "Why should the blacks be in rule of representation more than the cattle and the horses of the North?"

However, Governor Morris proposed a provision that taxation shall be in proportion to representation.

This placated the North enough to sign the Three-fifths Compromise.

Additionally, The Slave Trade Compromise, according to Article I, Section 9 prevented the slave trade from being prohibited prior to Congress in 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person.

Furthermore, Luther Martin, a supporter of the New Jersey Plan notes, "If the states were to have votes in proportion to the numbers of the people, the smaller states would be equally enslaved."

Even, so Nathaniel Gorham ports out, "If among states composed partly of the weak and partly of the strong, the former most need the protection of the law of the government."

This is in accordance with the Virginia Plan.

Eventually, Roger Sherman ended this debate when he urged the equality of votes for the states governments which could not be preserved unless they were represented.

While representation was solved at the Convention by creating a bicameral system, the consequences to this arise in today's society.

Moreover, the American population has grown over the years, but the House has stayed at 435 members as implemented by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

This means the smaller states like Wyoming are now overrepresented and favor the system.

If representation were to be reverted back to its original patent, California would have nearly 80 times the amount of representatives as Wyoming.

Concerning individual rights, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84 states, "That the truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the Constitution is itself in every rational sense and every useful purpose a bill of rights."

An argument made an affirmation of this was that in listing individual rights, those could also be limited.

Brutus II states, "It is necessary the individual should relinquish all their natural rights.

Some of such nature that cannot be surrendered, such as the rights of conscious and the rights of enjoying and defending life, et cetera."

Moving on, the powers of the courts were not specific and very broad.

Article III, Section 1 states, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," as Marbury v. Madison once outlined the judicial review in 1803.

Yet it can be argued that in leaving Article III so vague the Court would have more power over both branches, which many people believe to be true.

The Supreme Court asserted in Cooper v. Aaron the basic principle that the federal judiciary is Supreme and the exposition of the law of the Constitution.

Thus, the Heritage Foundation argues that because judicial was not outlined in the Constitution, that the language of Article III instead emphasizes the role of the courts assisting in other branches and carrying into the effect the authoritative acts of the government.

Furthermore, Article IV establishes the amendment process, and should be invoked to repeal the 17th Amendment.

This amendment changed Article I, Section 3, modifying how senators are selected saying, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators for each state, elected by the people thereof."

Moreover John Adams declared, "There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Additionally, the Senate was designed to prevent this sort of mob rule, and since there was no reelection, senators focused on doing their jobs.

George Washington said to Thomas Jefferson, "We pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Consequently, the masses were supposed to be represented by the House and the state in the Senate, which was proven when Thomas Jefferson elucidates, "The placing the privileged classes together in one House, and the unprivileged in another, would be better for than a scission."

Conversely, James Madison once said, "The truth was that all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

And in accordance with this belief, the single-subject amendment should be reintroduced.

This amendment would be similar to Article III, Section 24 of the Wyoming Constitution, which states, "No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall clearly be expressed in its title."

As Andrew Jackson once said, "There is no necessary evils in government.

Its evils only exist in its abuses."

- Unit four.

It would be inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of the executive and legislative powers to let the prerogative pardon power be exercised by the latter.

What were the framers reasons for giving the President the pardon power, and do you agree or disagree with them?

According to Framer James Wilson, if the President abuses the pardon power, he can be impeached and prosecuted.

Do you agree with Wilson?

Why or why not?

In your opinion, what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors?

- Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist 70, "that a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of government, and a government ill executed is in practice, a bad government."

With ultimately unchecked power to pardon, our panel disagrees with the Framers' decision to allow one individual the power of pardoning.

Originating from King Ine of Wessex and echoed by British Parliament, the Statute of 1533 declared, "the King's Highness, his heirs, and successor kings of his realm shall have the whole and sole power and authority of pardoning.

In relation, Alexander Hamilton expressed, "I believe that the British government forms the best model the world has ever produced."

Thus, foreign governments were widely taken into consideration, leading to the addition of the pardon power in Article II of the Constitution.

Moreover, Rufus King cautions against a mob mentality, exclaiming, "A legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose.

They are governed too much by the passions of the moment."

In contrast, James Mason argues, "The president ought not to have the power of pardoning because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself.

If he has a power of granting pardons before indictment or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?"

George Mason's worries were put on display in 1974 when president Ford granted a full, free, and absolute pardon onto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States.

Yet James Madison questions, "Shall any man be above justice?

Above all, shall that man be above it?

Who can commit the most extensive injustice?"

Thus, Thomas Paine claims, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

In the case of the pardon power, the Founding Fathers should not have modeled our constitutional government on outdated British law.

Even so, James Wilson argued, "If the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any persons, the House of Representatives can impeach him."

Nonetheless, in contrast with James Wilson's belief, our panel argues that a president cannot be impeached and prosecuted on claims of the abuse of the pardon power.

Case in point, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution outlines, "The President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Furthermore, in 1866, with a Supreme Court case, Ex parte Garland ruled the power of the pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment.

Consequently, the claim that the pardon power goes unchecked was upheld five years later in the case United States v. Klein, with the court ruling authorizing the President to offer a pardon on such conditions as he might think advisable.

By leaving the pardon power subject to the president's judgment, it allows for minimal argument for abuse of the pardon power.

Therefore, Wilson's claim remains invalid, both in regards to recent history and dating back to the Framers.

Specifically speaking, in Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton encouraged, "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."

Additionally, Michael J. Gearhart states, "The Framers were familiar with English tradition in which the phrase other high crimes and misdemeanors was understood as referring to political crimes, which were acts that caused serious injury to the state.

President Andrew Johnson's Article of Impeachment stated he did unlawfully in violation of the Constitution issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M.

Stanton."

Likewise, Governor Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention, "Corrupting his electors and incapacity were other causes of impeachment."

All this proves that the Founders defined high crimes and misdemeanors as extensive injustice in terms of the Constitution.

However, our panel agrees with Gerald Ford when he says, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House considers it to be at a given moment in history."

President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, whereas President Trump was impeached first for abuse of power and second for inciting violence.

All impeachments stem from high crimes and misdemeanors.

Thus the term includes many possible inequities determined only by the political views of the time.

Consequently, Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist 65, "The trial of impeachments is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding.

This can never be tied down by such strict rules."

- Unit four, question two.

Members of Congress are not only legislators, but they are also inquisitorial and should meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public officers.

How effectively do you believe Congress has used its investigatory power?

Explain the differences, if any between Congress's power to investigate and the power of oversight.

Which power in your opinion is more significant?

How effectively do you believe Congress has used its oversight powers?

Article I, Section 8 establishes the powers of the legislative branch stating, "Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution."

Though not clearly stated, the Constitution gives Congress the implied powers of investigation and oversight.

In relation to Warren G. Harding's involvement in the Teapot Dome Scandal, he claimed, "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

Congress implemented its investigatory powers to look into all persons involved with the scandal through a series of Senate hearings.

Furthermore, Congress also has an implied power of oversight.

This means that they have the ability to supervise major government entities, as well as the President.

A recent example of congressional oversight was former President Trump's two impeachment trials.

Though similar, the ability of Congress to investigate and supervise government institutions are vastly different.

Our panel believes that the greater of the two is the congressional power to investigate.

Congress's power to investigate not only extends to government scandals, but it also determines policy decisions, looks into major issues facing the United States, and explores the effectiveness of laws.

Moreover, in 1774, James Wilson noted that, "Members of the commons were considered to be grand inquisitors of the realm."

This legislative authority carried over to the Constitution in Article I, Section 1, which states the branch was given all legislative powers.

Specifically speaking, the Inspector General Act of 1978 was created to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and Congress informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations.

Moreover, the Consolidation Act of 2000 encouraged further oversight by requiring such a consolidated report that incorporates the agency's program performance and accountability reports.

Nonetheless, regardless of these efforts, the government has done little to ensure the effectiveness of Congress's oversight powers.

Notably in 2006, a testimonial report outlined the electronic surveillance activities that the president authorized under Stellar Winds, interception of the content of certain communications and collection of information on communications that occurred virtually undetected by Congress.

Furthermore, the Washington Post illuminates the lack of supremacy of congressional oversight in recent manners with the Trump Administration exerting executive privilege over subpoenaed documents.

A few years prior, President Obama exercised the same disregard for congressional oversight following an investigation into an alleged coverup involving a high profile Bureau of ATF scandal, also known as Fast and Furious.

Case in point, Congress has undoubtedly failed to use its oversight powers to the extent they were intended.

Additionally, James Madison states in Federalist 51, "In framing a government, you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

Regarding the investigatory powers, Madison reaffirms, "The House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to do justice to the country and to public officers."

Despite having such an obligation, our panel believes Congress has failed to maintain justice through the insufficient use of these powers.

For example, in Yellen versus United States, the Committee had failed in two respects to carry out that undertaking.

Consequently, the Committee lost any testimony they could have received from Yellen.

Likewise, in Christoffel v. United States, Justice Murphy declared, "We find that the subject of competency, both of the House as a whole, and of its committees has been a matter of careful consideration."

As a result, Congress was found incompetent and unable to run a proper investigation.

Moreover, the same inadequacy was shown in Vitarelli v. Seaton, when the upholding reinstatement was declared, "Having chosen to proceed against petitioner on security grounds, the secretary was bound by the regulations, even though petitioner could have been discharged summarily and without cause independently of those regulations."

Clearly, the reversal outlines Congress's failure during the investigatory process.

Congress has provided numerous reasons illustrating just how incompetent and ineffective the investigatory powers have been.

Justice Van Devanter wrote, "A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information."

- Unit six.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Do you agree or disagree?

Why?

What disagreements did the Founders have about a standing army, and are they relevant today?

To what extent should there be an international US military presence?

- As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Millions of citizens are deeply disturbed that the military industrial complex often too shapes foreign policy."

Along with this, former President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address that, "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex."

Concurring with both the civil rights activist and former US President Eisenhower, we as a panel agree that the potential disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Relating to this, current events such as nuclear warfare in the Middle East, we recognize the importance of Eisenhower's words as there has been an escalation at various levels in Iraq on the security, political, and media levels.

Even as an renowned federalist with a firm belief in the need for a strong national government, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention by saying that, "A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not be long safe companions to liberty.

Many of the Founding Fathers strongly argued against a standing army due to the financial constraints which led to the passing of Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, or better known as the Army Clause, which states that Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be longer than a term of two years.

In modern day, the military also spends about $9 billion on the construction and management of military facilities, such as barracks and family housings, with an additional $25 billion in base operations for just one year.

Additionally, the National History Education Clearinghouse analyzed that, "Madison's language reflected a common concern that the maintenance of a standing army in the new United States would place a financial burden on the young government."

Today, with the national debt reaching over $28 trillion, which is equivalent to every individual US citizen being $85,000 in debt, we can see that Madison's foresight has only been proven true, marking this an extremely relevant issue today.

However, we recognize that some of the Founders' forewarnings are not relevant today, specifically the Third Amendment.

Currently, the Third Amendment is the least litigated amendment today, as the Supreme court has never used the Third Amendment as the main basis for a ruling.

With the military budget for housing approaching $9 billion in 2019, it has made clear that the United States has the infrastructure needed to house soldiers.

While there are some modern day implications relating to domestic privacy in cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, many people view the Third Amendment as the least important.

In addition, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on standing armies by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

By rendering checks and balances on these two branches, it prevented the executive legislative branch from taking advantage of a standing army, which ultimately proves that the fear of violation of the Third Amendment is not applicable today.

Concurring with former US Representative Ron Paul's idea that we have "a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us."

We as a panel agree that the United States should have a limited international military presence because of the financial constraints it placed upon our government at the moment.

This strain is seen in our federal budget, as the current military spending is an estimated $934 billion.

Former President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy clearly shows how an intricate involvement with humanitarian issues can severely inhibit a president's job to deal with domestic issues.

For example, an overextension of the United States government through Jimmy Carter's presidency first began with the Iranian Hostage of 1970.

This led to Operation Eagle Claw, which led to the death of many Americans, making it one of the major flaws of the Carter Administration, and a clear case of failure in humanitarian foreign policy.

Concluding with the words of Eisenhower in his last speech as president, "As we peer into society's future, we, you, and I and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow.

We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss of their political and spiritual heritage."

(dramatic music) - [Male Narrator 2] This program was funded in part by a grant from Newman's Own Foundation, working to nourish the common good by donating all profits from Newman's Own food and beverage products to charitable organizations that seek to make the world a better place.

More information is available at newmansownfoundation.org.

Funding for this program is made possible in part by the Wyoming Humanities Council, helping Wyoming take a closer look at life through the humanities, thinkwy.org, and by the members of the Wyoming PBS Foundation.

Thank you for your support.