The ''sole Power of Impeachment'' referred only to the first step -- the equivalent of an indictment or bringing to trial -- in the removal of a federal official. The grounds for impeachment set down in Article II, Section 4 -- ''Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' -- have been subject to widely varying interpretations.
There was broad agreement among the framers of the Constitution that the Congress should consist of a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives, the ''lower house,'' was conceived to be the the ''great repository'' of the people of the nation at large, while the Senate, ''the upper house,'' was to be composed of only the most knowledgeable, well-educated, and virtuous, who could be relied upon to act as a moderating influence on the whims of the people at large. <p> The requirement that members of the House of Representatives reside in the state in which they were chosen reflected the belief that representatives, if they are to serve the people who elect them, must have close and meaningful ties to the communities in which those people live. <p> The ''three-fifths of all other Persons'' referred to in this section is the result of the infamous ''three-fifths compromise,'' in which slaves, though not mentioned by name, were to be counted as three-fifths of a person in the apportionment 0f representation in the House of representatives as well as in the apportioning of the direct taxes to be paid by each state. The three-fifths ratio was a purely arbitrary one. It was a consequence of a fundamental contradiction that the Convention delegates were unable to resolve: slaves were human beings, but by the laws of most states they were also regarded as property. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery rendered this portion of Article I, Section 2 null and void. <p> Although the original Constitution laid down a formula for representation based on population (and ''three fifths of all other Persons''), none of the delegates to the 1787 Convention really knew what the actual population of each of the states was. The initial apportionment of representation was merely a guess, but the Constitution did provide for a census of the population to be taken every ten years, a practice that began in 1790 and has continued to the present day. <p> The ''sole Power of Impeachment'' referred only to the first step -- the equivalent of an indictment or bringing to trial -- in the removal of a federal official. The grounds for impeachment set down in Article II, Section 4 -- ''Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' -- have been subject to widely varying interpretations.

The Senate, as the more deliberative of the two legislative bodies, was given the responsibility of trying impeachment cases. Seeking to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution designates the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as the person who would preside over an impeachment trial of the president.
The Senate, as the ''upper house,'' was conceived as a more deliberative body, whose members would be comprised of the most virtuous and knowledgeable citizens of the land. The framers of the Constitution believed that Senators should therefore serve longer terms in order that they might be better insulated from the immediate pressures of public opinion. One of the means by which Senators would be protected from popular whims was to provide for an indirect method for their election, with the legislatures of the individual states being given the power over such election. The provision for staggered terms of service was designed to prevent sudden, convulsive turnover in the membership of the Senate. <p> Consistent with the view that the members of the Senate were expected to possess superior knowledge and experience, the minimum age of a Senators was set at thirty, and the length of time after becoming a citizen nine years, as opposed to twenty-five years of age and seven years of citizenship for members of the House of Representatives. <p> The framers of the Constitution were aware of the necessity of providing for a vice president, who would assume the president's duties in the event of his death, disability, or removal, but they had a hard time thinking of any other functions the vice president might perform. The provision of the Article I, Section 2, designating the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate, is the only item in the Constitution that speaks to the limited official duties of the vice president. <p> The Senate, as the more deliberative of the two legislative bodies, was given the responsibility of trying impeachment cases. Seeking to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution designates the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as the person who would preside over an impeachment trial of the president.

The stipulation that Congress should assemble on the first Monday in December was altered by the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933. The practical effect of the original terms of Article I, Section 4, was to delay the seating of new members of Congress until March, creating a period of months during which a lame-duck Congress would be in session. Improvements in transportation and communications made it possible, and desirable, to move the stipulated time of the meeting of Congress to January 3
As was the case in the instance of voting requirements, the framers of the Constitution were content to leave the matter of when congressional elections should be held to the state governments. <p> The stipulation that Congress should assemble on the first Monday in December was altered by the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933. The practical effect of the original terms of Article I, Section 4, was to delay the seating of new members of Congress until March, creating a period of months during which a lame-duck Congress would be in session. Improvements in transportation and communications made it possible, and desirable, to move the stipulated time of the meeting of Congress to January 3

The most controversial of these prohibitions is contained in the very first item. The Convention delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, whose slave economies were still expanding, insisted that no legislation interfering with the African slave trade were still expanding, insisted that no legislation interfering with the African slave trade be permitted until at least twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution. The prohibition of any legislation affecting ''the Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit'' was intended to ensure that protection. As in all instances in which the Constitution deals with the institution of slavery, neither the word ''slave'' nor ''slavery'' is explicitly mentioned inn the text of the document. In 1808 the U.S. Congress enacted legislation abolishing the international slave trade, but during that twenty-year interval some two hundred thousand slaves were imported from Africa into the United States.
Article I, Section 9, outlines those actions that the federal government may not take. <p> The most controversial of these prohibitions is contained in the very first item. The Convention delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, whose slave economies were still expanding, insisted that no legislation interfering with the African slave trade were still expanding, insisted that no legislation interfering with the African slave trade be permitted until at least twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution. The prohibition of any legislation affecting ''the Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit'' was intended to ensure that protection. As in all instances in which the Constitution deals with the institution of slavery, neither the word ''slave'' nor ''slavery'' is explicitly mentioned inn the text of the document. In 1808 the U.S. Congress enacted legislation abolishing the international slave trade, but during that twenty-year interval some two hundred thousand slaves were imported from Africa into the United States.

The president's use of the power to appoint ''all other Officers of the United States'' has increased in direct proportion to the growing power of the federal government and of the executive branch in particular. Although the Founding Fathers no doubt assumed that the president would appoint members of a presidential ''cabinet,'' they would perhaps have been surprised at the growth in the size and scope of the bureaucracy serving each of the cabinet departments. The president's cabinet has expanded from four members in President Washington's day (the secretaries of treasury, war, and state and the attorney general) to fifteen (not including the vice president) today.
Article II, Section 2 is principally concerned with outlining the powers of the president, but given the enormous power of the modern presidency, it seems remarkably short and vague in its prescriptions. Certainly, the most important -- and controversial -- of those powers has developed from the president's role as commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States and of the militias of the several states. That role, which has given the president' enormous power to make war,'' has sometimes come in conflict with the power of Congress to ''declare war'' as well as with Congress's power to control the financial appropriations necessary to make fighting a war possible. <p> By the terms of Article II, section 2, the president has the primary role of entering into treaties with other nations, although it reserves to the Senate the right to approve any treaty before it assumes the force of law. <p> The president has the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, ministers, justices of the Supreme Court, and ''all other Officers of the United States.'' In recent decades, as the Supreme Court has become a more powerful and assertive branch of the federal government, members of the Senate have responded by asserting more vigorously their right to advise and consent with respect to the appointment of justices of the Court. <p> The president's use of the power to appoint ''all other Officers of the United States'' has increased in direct proportion to the growing power of the federal government and of the executive branch in particular. Although the Founding Fathers no doubt assumed that the president would appoint members of a presidential ''cabinet,'' they would perhaps have been surprised at the growth in the size and scope of the bureaucracy serving each of the cabinet departments. The president's cabinet has expanded from four members in President Washington's day (the secretaries of treasury, war, and state and the attorney general) to fifteen (not including the vice president) today.

Article III, Section 1, stipulates that there would be one ''supreme'' court in the nation but is vague about the number and extent of the ''inferior'' courts. The provisionnbthat all federal judges should hold their offices during ''good Behavior'' was intended to protect the independence of the judiciary and reinforce the separation of powers among the three branches of the new government.
Just as the framers of the Constitution considered the Congress to be the most vital branch of the new government and therefore dealt with that branch in the very first article of the Constitution, so too was the placement of the judicial branch in Article III of the Constitution a reflection of their view of the relative importance of that branch. The brevity and vagueness of the language in Article III are similarly a reflection of their view of the relative importance of that branch as well as of their uncertainty about its function in the new federal union. <p> Article III, Section 1, stipulates that there would be one ''supreme'' court in the nation but is vague about the number and extent of the ''inferior'' courts. The provisionnbthat all federal judges should hold their offices during ''good Behavior'' was intended to protect the independence of the judiciary and reinforce the separation of powers among the three branches of the new government.

Although Article III, Section 2, makes no mention of a power of judicial review (the power of the Supreme Court or any other federal court to pass judgment on whether a federal or state law violates the terms of the Constitution, many, if not most, of the delegates to the Convention probably assumed that the federal courts would exercise at least some limited form of that power in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by its Chief Justice, John Marshall, enunciated a limited power of judicial review. wordcount: 96
Article III, Section 2, defines the jurisdiction and mode of procedure of the federal courts. The key phrase is ''to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.'' In other words, the jurisdiction of the federal courts extends to those areas in which the United States government itself has jurisdiction. That jurisdiction, vaguely defined in 1787, has steadily increased over more than two centuries in which the Constitution has been in operation. <p> Although Article III, Section 2, makes no mention of a power of judicial review (the power of the Supreme Court or any other federal court to pass judgment on whether a federal or state law violates the terms of the Constitution, many, if not most, of the delegates to the Convention probably assumed that the federal courts would exercise at least some limited form of that power in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by its Chief Justice, John Marshall, enunciated a limited power of judicial review. wordcount: 96

In 1807, in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, for his role in an alleged plan to lead parts of the Louisiana territory in a secessionist movement from the United States, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down further limitations on the definition of treason, establishing the doctrine of ''constructive treason,'' meaning that the mere planning of an act that might be considered treasonous was not sufficient grounds for conviction; in order to be convicted of treason one actually had to commit, or at least be in the process of committing, the act. Moreover, the act of simply speaking, however stridently, in a manner that some might believe to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy was given further protection by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment
Article III, Section 3, is the only instance in which the U.S. Constitution defines a specific crime, that of treason. Treason is defined as either levying war against the United States or giving ''aid and Comfort'' to the enemies of the United States. The ''Aid and Comfort'' clause expands the definition of treason beyond physical acts of violence -- e.g., yo the passing on of state secrets to another nation -- but the Constitution also lays down specific legal procedures by which people accused of treason might be convicted of such an act. The Constitution further limits the punishment of treason to the person actually committing the act, not to family members or close associates. <p> In 1807, in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, for his role in an alleged plan to lead parts of the Louisiana territory in a secessionist movement from the United States, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down further limitations on the definition of treason, establishing the doctrine of ''constructive treason,'' meaning that the mere planning of an act that might be considered treasonous was not sufficient grounds for conviction; in order to be convicted of treason one actually had to commit, or at least be in the process of committing, the act. Moreover, the act of simply speaking, however stridently, in a manner that some might believe to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy was given further protection by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment

The second part of Article IV, Section 3, gives gives to Congress considerable leeway as to what it might do in territories that have not achieved the status of a state within the federal union. Under this provision, Congress was able to grant independence to the Philippines, which was once a territory of the United States, and to extend certain rights (for example, the right of U.S. citizenship, although not the right to vote in presidentisl elections) to territories like Puerto Rico. This congressional jurisdiction also extends to the District of Columbia, which, though its citizens enjoy most of the rights of citizens of the fifty American states, is not at present fully represented in Congress.
In 1787 the framers of the Constitution were mindful that, in addition to the thirteen original states, America consisted of a vast territory between the borders of those states and the Mississippi River. Article IV, Section 3, grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the union on an equal basis with existing states. However, individual states are not permitted either to divide themselves into separate states (for example, California, by the terms of the Constitution, is not permitted to divide itself into two states; e.g., Northern California and Southern Califonia, jor is it possible for two or more states (for example, Rhode Island and Connecticut) to combine their territories into a single state without the consent both of the legislatures of the states involved and of Congress. <p> The second part of Article IV, Section 3, gives gives to Congress considerable leeway as to what it might do in territories that have not achieved the status of a state within the federal union. Under this provision, Congress was able to grant independence to the Philippines, which was once a territory of the United States, and to extend certain rights (for example, the right of U.S. citizenship, although not the right to vote in presidentisl elections) to territories like Puerto Rico. This congressional jurisdiction also extends to the District of Columbia, which, though its citizens enjoy most of the rights of citizens of the fifty American states, is not at present fully represented in Congress.

The second item in this section of Article IV was a direct response to one of the events that precipitated the calling of a Constitutional Convention: an armed uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts, known as Shays' Rebellion. The Constitution promises states protection against both internal uprisings and invasions from abroad but at the same time assures the states that the government will not interfere in their defense unless asked to do so by officials in the states themselves
If there is a single idea expressed in Section 4 of Article IV on which all the framers of the Constitution agreed, it was that America should have a republican form of government, both in the polities of the individual states and in the new federal structure that they were creating. However, there were probably as many variations in the meaning of the word ''republican'' as there were delegates, ranging from those who wanted a democratic government directly responsive to the people to those who wishd for a more elitist government, responsible to -- but somewhat removed from -- the people at large. The two core elements of republicanism on which all delegates could agree were that the government should be, either directly or indirectly, ''representative'' in character and that its officeholders should not be base their claims to public office on hereditary privilege. <p> The second item in this section of Article IV was a direct response to one of the events that precipitated the calling of a Constitutional Convention: an armed uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts, known as Shays' Rebellion. The Constitution promises states protection against both internal uprisings and invasions from abroad but at the same time assures the states that the government will not interfere in their defense unless asked to do so by officials in the states themselves

Article V also mentions three specific instances in which the Constitution is not subject to amendment: the provision prohibiting legislation affecting the international slave trade until 1808, the prohibition against direct taxation unless apportioned according to population, and the provision guaranteeing each state equal representation in the United States Senate.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called together to amend the Articles of Confederation, the existing frame of government that sought to create a union among the thirteen independent and sovereign states. By the terms of the Articles of Confederation, unanimous approval of all the states legislatures was required to amend any major features of that frame of government. That provision proved to be fatally flawed, for it soon became apparent that it was impossible to attain unanimity on any matter of consequence. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention having already gone forward not merely with amendments to the Articles of Confederation but rather with a decision to scrap the Articles altogether and create a vastly strengthened central government, felt no compunction about changing the formula for amendment, providing two different routes by which the new Constitution could be amended. Amendments can be proposed either by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or when two-thirds of the legislatures of the states agree on calling a national convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Amendments proposed by either method must, in order to become part of the Constitution, receive the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures or be approved by specially called conventions in at least three-quarters of the states. Most of the amendments to the Constitution have been first approved by Congress and then adopted by three-quarters of the state legislatures, although the Twenty-first Amendment, repealing prohibition, was adopted by conventions in three-quarters of the states. <p> The amendment process is an arduous one, and for that reason, relatively few amendments have been passed during the more than two hundred years since the Constitution was adopted, making it one of the most concise written constitutions in the world. Ten of the amendments --those that we consider to be part of the Bill of Rights-- were proposed by the First Congress of the United States and quickly adopted by the necessary number of states within a few years after the new government commenced operation. During the whole of the nineteenth century, only five amendments were adopted, three of them coming in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and dealing with the rights of newly freed slaves. Twelve amendments were passed in the twentieth century. Among the most important were those authorizing a federal income tax, giving women a constitutional right to vote, providing for direct election of United States Senators, and guaranteeing all American citizens eighteen ears or older the right to vote. <p> Article V also mentions three specific instances in which the Constitution is not subject to amendment: the provision prohibiting legislation affecting the international slave trade until 1808, the prohibition against direct taxation unless apportioned according to population, and the provision guaranteeing each state equal representation in the United States Senate.

The final item in Article VI requires officials in both the state and federal governments to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This item is also the only place in the body of the Constitution where religion is explicitly mentioned. It is notable that this sole mention of religion reinforces the principle of separation of church and state, decreeing that there shall be no religious test for holding public office.
At the time the Constitution was created, the Continental government, the individual governments of the states, and many private citizens had all accumulated substantial debt obligations. The first item in Article VI was designated to ensure the sanctity of those debt obligations. <p> Article VI contains the so-called federal supremacy clause, the assertion that in cases of conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law takes precedence. Over the course of the nation's history, there have been hundreds of cases where the overlapping jurisdictions of the states and the federal government (for example, in matters relating to the regulation of commerce, industry, or environmental policy) have led to lawsuits. In general, although not uniformly, the federal supremacy clause has worked to incline courts to side with the federal government. <p> The final item in Article VI requires officials in both the state and federal governments to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This item is also the only place in the body of the Constitution where religion is explicitly mentioned. It is notable that this sole mention of religion reinforces the principle of separation of church and state, decreeing that there shall be no religious test for holding public office.

In an age in which advances in technology have offered the government new ways to gather evidence of a possible crime -- e.g., wiretapping and other means of sophisticated electronic surveillance -- the federal courts have been presented with new dilemmas about how to interpret the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Enactment of the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 has significantly expanded the government's ability to carry out such surveillance.
The guarantees against ''unreasonable searches and seizures'' of persons, houses, and property, and the insistence that any such searches be based on ''probable cause'' and accompanied by search warrants, were another product of Americans' experience during the Revolution, when British customs officers and soldiers carried out blanket searches and seizures without proper warrants. In recent years, through the use of incorporation doctrine, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that police officers at all levels of government must demonstrate probable cause before stopping and searching anyone whom they might suspect of a crime. The precise definition of ''probable cause'' has been much debated, and in many cases police officers are forced to make difficult judgments about whether they should detain an individual and search his or her possessions. <p> In an age in which advances in technology have offered the government new ways to gather evidence of a possible crime -- e.g., wiretapping and other means of sophisticated electronic surveillance -- the federal courts have been presented with new dilemmas about how to interpret the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Enactment of the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 has significantly expanded the government's ability to carry out such surveillance.

The concern for protection of property is further emphasized in the prohibition of the taking of private property for public use ''without just compensation.'' In fact, federal and state governments have often taken control of private property (for example, for the purpose of building a highway or some other necessary public work) by using the doctrine of ''eminent domain.'' In those cases, the owners are compensated for the value of their property, although in many cases not without significant litigation.
Reflecting long-standings of English common law, as well as the American perception that the British had violated those traditions in the years leading up to the American Revolution, the Fifth Amendment requires that people charged with capital crimes (i.e., a serious crime that falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts) be first presented before a grand jury -- a group of ordinary citizens drawn from the population. Those serving in the military are not afforded that protection; they are to be tried in military courts, which set their own rules of judicial procedure. <p> Although indictment by a grand jury is standard practice in important civil and criminal proceedings at the federal level, many states have not used this mechanism for securing indictments of accused criminals, believing that grand juries are unnecessarily costly and time-consuming. Although many of the provisions of the Bill of rights have been applied to the actions of state governments through the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has not asserted that states are bound to conform to this particular provision of the Fifth Amendment. <p> The provision of the Fifth Amendment preventing double jeopardy stipulates that individuals cannot be tried for the same crime more than once. If a defendant is acquitted of a crime, the government does not have the right to prosecute that individual again, and if a defendant is convinced, the government may not impose multiple punishments for the same crime. <p> The phrase ''taking the Fifth'' refers to the provision of the Fifth Amendment ensuring the right against self-incrimination :the right to refuse to answer questions in court that might lead either to indictment or punishment for an alleged crime. Finally, the Fifth Amendment contains a very open-ended guarantee, echoing the words of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, that no person can be deprived of the fundamental rights of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. <p> The concern for protection of property is further emphasized in the prohibition of the taking of private property for public use ''without just compensation.'' In fact, federal and state governments have often taken control of private property (for example, for the purpose of building a highway or some other necessary public work) by using the doctrine of ''eminent domain.'' In those cases, the owners are compensated for the value of their property, although in many cases not without significant litigation.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees to the accused the right to be confronted with the nture of the charges brought against hih; the right to confront, either directly or through an attorney, the witnesses against him; and the right to present witnesses in his defense. Finally, criminal defendants are entitled to ''Assistance of Counsel''; that is, a competent attorney to assist them in their defense. These basic guarantees have been elaborated in countless court cases in the more than two hundred years since the amendment was ratified and, through the incorporation doctrine, have become the standard procedure for criminal trials inn states and other localities as well as in federal courts.
The Sixth Amendment is appropriately considered the centerpiece of the American criminal justice system. In addition to guaranteeing all criminal defendants a trial by jury, it provides an outline of the basic procedures to be followed in such trials. The trial shall be a speedy one, which is to say that accused criminals cannot be imprisoned for lengthy periods of time before receiving a trial. The trial must be public. The framers of the Sixth Amendment specifically rejected the English Star Chamber proceedings; that is, proceedings held in private, away from scrutiny by the public. The juries in criminal trials should in normal instances, be drawn from ordinary citizens who are resident in the state and region where the crime was committed (although in unusual cases, if the crime is of such a sensationl nature that t might prove impossible to impanel an impartial jury, the trial might be held in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the crime was committed). <p> The Sixth Amendment also guarantees to the accused the right to be confronted with the nture of the charges brought against hih; the right to confront, either directly or through an attorney, the witnesses against him; and the right to present witnesses in his defense. Finally, criminal defendants are entitled to ''Assistance of Counsel''; that is, a competent attorney to assist them in their defense. These basic guarantees have been elaborated in countless court cases in the more than two hundred years since the amendment was ratified and, through the incorporation doctrine, have become the standard procedure for criminal trials inn states and other localities as well as in federal courts.