Independence Hall.

The City of Brotherly Love became the ex-capital for several reasons, including the machinations of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, and a compromise over slavery.

But it was some rowdy actions in 1783 by Continental soldiers that started a movement for a capital city that was more secure and controllable.

Until then, Philadelphia had been the hub of the new nation. Important decisions were made there, and it was equally accessible from the North and the South.

The Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia in June 1783 at what we now call Independence Hall, operating under the Articles of Confederation.

However, there were serious problems afoot. The government had problems paying the soldiers who fought in the war against the British for their service.

The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 was a crisis that literally forced the Congress to focus on its personal safety and pitted the federal government (in its weakened form) against the state of Pennsylvania.

Unpaid federal troops from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, marched to Philadelphia to meet with their brothers-in-arms. A group of about 400 soldiers then proceeded to Congress, blocked the doors to the building, and demanded their money. They also controlled some weapons storage areas.

Congress sent out one of its youngest delegates to negotiate with the troops: Alexander Hamilton, a former soldier himself. Hamilton convinced the soldiers to free Congress so they could meet quickly and reach a deal about repaying the troops.

Hamilton did meet with a small committee that night, and they sent a secret note to Pennsylvania’s state government asking for its state militia for protection from the federal troops.

Representatives from Congress then met with John Dickinson, the head of Pennsylvania’s government; Dickinson discussed the matter with the militia; and the state told Congress it wouldn’t use the state’s troops to protect it.

On the same day, Congress packed up and moved temporarily to Princeton, New Jersey. It traveled to various cities over the following years, including Trenton, New Jersey; Annapolis, Maryland; and New York City.

Delegates agreed to return to Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the current U.S. Constitution, while the Congress of the Confederation was still seated in New York City.

Part of the new Constitution addressed the concerns caused by the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783.

Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the power to create a federal district to “become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings.”

When Congress met in 1789, two locations were proposed for the capital: one near Lancaster and another in Germantown, an area just outside Philadelphia.

However, Hamilton became part of a grand bargain to move the capital to an undeveloped area that encompassed parts of Virginia and Maryland, receiving some help from Thomas Jefferson along the way.

The Residence Act of 1790 put the capital in current-day Washington as part of plan to appease pro-slavery states who feared a northern capital as being too sympathetic to abolitionists.

In turn, Hamilton received a commitment to reorganize the federal government’s finances by getting the southern states to indirectly pay off the war debts of the northern states.

A twist in a deal was negotiated by Robert Morris. Until the new capital was built on the Potomac, the capital would move be in Philadelphia for 10 years.

Related Story: Philly asks, why did you leave me for D.C.?

During the following decade, Philadelphians lobbied hard for the capital to stay in Pennsylvania. They offered President Washington an elaborate mansion as an incentive to stay. Instead, he and his successor, John Adams, lived in a more modest house near Congress.

Also, a yellow fever epidemic hit Philadelphia in 1793, raising doubts about the safety of the area.

And native Virginians like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson were actively planning for a capital near their home.

So one May day in 1800, Congress ended its business in Philadelphia and started the move to the new Federal District. President Adams also left Philadelphia in April and moved into the White House in November.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Historical Stories

The Mexican-American war in a nutshell

10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman

10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant

USS Constitution

The Navy in its earliest form dates back to 1775, when it was established by the Continental Congress on October 13 in session in Philadelphia. The Navy considers this as its official birthdate.

However, after the Revolutionary War, the new nation sold its ships and sent its sailors home. It wasn’t until 1789 that the newly ratified Constitution empowered Congress to bring the Navy back.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution allowed Congress “to provide and maintain a Navy” as part of its enumerated powers. In Article II, the Constitution named the president as the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy.

It took until 1794 for Congress to approve money to buy new ships. Relations with the British, French, and Barbary pirates forced Congress to plan to build six frigates. Three of the ships were completed before hostilities died down: the USS United States, the USS Constellation, and the USS Constitution.

The start of the Quasi-War with France in 1798 led to the official creation of the Department of the Navy on April 30. The undeclared war on France involved raids on U.S. merchant vessels by French privateers and warships (which were too weak to take on British shipping).

Benjamin Stoddert, the first secretary of the Navy, played a critical role in establishing the new Navy. He secured funding for more ships, sent the Navy on attacks against the French in the Caribbean, and made sure the best officers and sailors were in the service. Stoddert also set up the first six Navy shipyards in the country.

Stoddert left office in 1801 as the Federalists were removed from power and Thomas Jefferson took over as president from John Adams. Although funding for ships was scaled back, Jefferson sent the Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American interests against the Barbary pirates in Tripoli and other areas. It fought well using the tactics adopted under Stoddert.

But in the War of 1812, the Navy was undersized compared with the British, which had the largest, finest naval forces in the world. While the Navy had several isolated, spectacular victories over the British, it couldn’t stop the empire from imposing blockade conditions.

Even worse, British forces were able to land in Washington, D.C., burning the White House and even the U.S. Navy Yard. At the war’s end, it became apparent that an active Navy was needed to protect merchant shipping, at the very least.

Since Stoddert’s appointment in 1798, there has always been a secretary of the Navy. The secretary was a member of the president’s cabinet until 1949. Currently, the secretary serves in the Defense Department.

A civilian serves as the secretary of the Navy. Currently, former Mississippi governor Ray Mabus is the secretary.

In the past, historian George Bancroft served as secretary and played a key role in establishing the Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1845.

Bancroft came into office about one year after the USS Princeton disaster of 1844. Secretary of the Navy Thomas Gilmer and the former Navy secretary (and active secretary of state) Abel Upshur were killed when a gun exploded on the Princeton during a demonstration.

Secretary Gilmer had only been in office for 10 days. His predecessor, David Henshaw, escaped the Princeton tragedy because Congress didn’t approve his recess appointment by President John Tyler.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Constitution Check: Will the court repudiate decisions from the World War II era?

Reports: Privacy bill CISPA shut down in Senate

10 surprising birthday facts about President Monroe

Source: Alexander Marks (Wikimedia Commons).

Postal Service leaders said on Wednesday they have dropped plans to limit deliveries to five days a week as a needed cost-saving measure, because of language added to the current federal budget.

“By including restrictive language in the Continuing Resolution, Congress has prohibited implementation of a new national delivery schedule for mail and packages,” the Postal Service Board of Governors said in a statement.

The board also hinted strongly that if Congress doesn’t take additional measures, the Postal Service would need taxpayer help to stay in business.

“It is not possible for the Postal Service to meet significant cost reduction goals without changing its delivery schedule–any rational analysis of our current financial condition and business options leads to this conclusion. Delaying responsible changes to the Postal Service business model only increases the potential that the Postal Service may become a burden to the American taxpayer, which is avoidable,” the Board said.

The Postal Service gets limited direct funding from Congress, but Congress has oversight of the agency through its constitutional powers. The Postal Service had hoped to save $2 billion annually by cutting back on Saturday services.

It was established by the Constitution in 1787. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, including the power to establish and maintain post offices, along with roads to support the service.

On March 21, Congress passed its final continuing resolution for the current fiscal year.

At the time, Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer said that if Congress couldn’t find a way to work with the Postal Service to adapt to the marketplace, taxpayers would face a $47 billion bailout in the next four years.

That deadline could come as soon as this October, by some estimates.

The General Accounting Office didn’t give a doomsday date for the Postal Service in a February 2013 report, but its conclusion was that Congress needed to move quickly.

“If Congress does not act soon, USPS could be forced to take more drastic actions that could have disruptive, negative effects on its employees, customers, and the availability of reliable and affordable postal services,” the group said.

If Congress is forced to bail out the Postal Service, it would be costly, but not by a record-breaking amount.

According to data from Pro Publica, four other recent government bailouts of financial institutions topped the $50 billion mark: Fannie Mae ($116 billion), Freddie Mac ($71 billion), AIG ($68 billion), and General Motors ($50 billion).

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Representative Darrell Issa of California are overseeing efforts in the Senate and the House to come up with bipartisan postal legislation, an effort that failed in the 112th Congress.

The website Federal Times said earlier this week that a version of a new postal bill in Congress could be coming up for discussion in the near future, according to an official at the Association for Postal Commerce.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Constitution Check: Can a local government order every family in town to have a gun?
Senate faces gun control debate with deep divisions
Supreme Court decision could shield Mother Jones in McConnell case

Join Presidential Madness!

At Constitution Daily, madness in March doesn’t just apply to the NCAA—it’s also an awesome excuse to give the bracket treatment to the executive branch of government. This year, it’s all about the presidential Cabinet.

Get into Presidential Madness by downloading a bracket [PDF] and predicting who you think will make it to the finals as best Cabinet member of all time. Check in and vote each day at Constitution Daily for the latest round of polling.

Round 3: Secretary of war (pre-WWII)

The War Department predated the Constitution, and its leaders headed the Army and were third in line to the presidency. It was replaced by the Defense Department after World War II.

1. John C. Calhoun. Served 1817 – 1825. As James Monroe’s secretary of war, Calhoun tried to modernize the military and expand its ability to function nationally.

2. Edwin Stanton. Served 1862 – 1869. Stanton managed the Civil War effort for President Abraham Lincoln, and his later feud with Andrew Johnson led to Johnson’s impeachment.

3. William Howard Taft. Served 1904 – 1908. Taft served President Theodore Roosevelt in important matters in Panama and the Philippines, and as a de facto vice president.

4. Henry Stimson. Served 1911 – 1913, 1940 – 1945. Stimson had two tours at the War Department, including managing a 13-million-member military during World War II, and overseeing the atomic bomb program.

Pick your favorite in our polls below, and check back each day to see a new Presidential Madness vote!

Note: If you can’t see the poll above, use this link:  http://poll.fm/45wld

Round 4: Secretary of defense (post-WWII)

The Defense Department grew out of World War II; its leaders had to manage a complex, global military force.

1. Melvin Laird. Served 1969 – 1973. A former congressman, Laird served under Richard Nixon, supervised the winding down of the Vietnam War, and ended the draft.

2. Caspar Weinberger. Served 1981 – 1987. Weinberger lead the Defense Department for Ronald Reagan and oversaw a massive effort to build up the military as the Soviet Union crumbled.

3. Donald Rumsfeld. Served 1975 – 1977, 2001 – 2006. He first led the military under Gerald Ford and returned to the Defense Department to head the post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. Robert Gates. Served 2006 – 2011. Having served under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Gates was known for his bipartisan leadership and broad government and academic background.

Note: If you can’t see the poll above, use this link: http://poll.fm/45wli

The idea of a “virtual Congress” isn’t new and isn’t likely to get a lot of support in the current Congress, but it does raise some interesting issues.

New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce introduced the idea back in November 2010. His latest resolution argues that that a remote Congress is better for citizens, because it puts elected representatives closer to constituents.

Pearce’s resolution “directs the Committee on House Administration to establish procedures and rules for the consideration of legislation by Members of Congress in a virtual setting.”

In short, the House of Representatives would be able to teleconference and video conference and “implement hearings, conduct debate, meet, and vote” under Pearce’s plan.

Pearce’s argument also states that a remote Congress would save taxpayers money by minimizing travel costs, and prevent evildoers who might disrupt the government with a terrorist attack on Capitol Hill by spreading members across the country.

In a 2010 policy document, Pearce provided more details about the plan. For starters, the House wouldn’t be 100 percent virtual, which would keep the proposal from conflicting with constitutional requirements for it to meet in person in Washington.

“Members of Congress would report to Washington for debate and votes on critical bills and bills that pass a certain threshold of spending. Other occasions that warrant they be present in person would be to attend the annual State of the Union or receive addresses by foreign heads of state and other significant events,” he said in 2010.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires that if the House or Senate wants to meet in session outside of the Capitol, it needs permission from the other chamber.

The 20th Amendment also requires that Congress “shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.”

Pearce also states that a remote Congress would insulate members from lobbyists in Washington, and make representatives directly responsible to voters.

“Regular, everyday citizens have little-to-no-input as legislation moves through the subcommittees, full committees or floor debate. That is a problem that needs resolution,” Pearce said in 2010.

Last week, he told The Hill that “Keeping legislators closer to the people we represent would pull back Washington’s curtain and allow constituents to see and feel, first-hand, their government at work.”

However, critics of the current Congress and its underachieving predecessor point to the constant travel to and from Washington by politicians as a leading cause of gridlock.

Labeled “The Commuter Congress,” most lawmakers use long weekends to travel home and see family members and constituents. Business on Capitol Hill is often limited to three or four days a week.

For example, in the current calendar for the 113th Congress, the House meets four days a week for 26 weeks in the year; its members are never scheduled to work a five-day week. The House will work on 14 Fridays, out of 52, this year.

Former Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle have talked about the lack of personal contact outside of work between Congress members as a direct factor in political gridlock.

“I know many times I would look up on TV and I would see somebody and then the name would come up and it would say ‘member of Congress’ and I’d go ‘I don’t even know who that is,’” former congressman Connie Mack told CNN in January 2013.

A 2011 Newsweek article recounted some tales from prior sessions of Congress, where politicians and their families spent a lot of time with each other outside of the Capitol–and regardless of political affiliation.

“Real legislating—the compromises and deal making that distinguish politics from posturing—happens only among people who know and respect each other,” said author Lisa Miller.

Miller also pointed out two other realities: Some politicians don’t want to be seen as part of the Washington establishment, and it’s easier for congressional members to raise election funds at home.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, much compromise was achieved when the delegates met socially after their contentious sessions inside what is now known as Independence Hall. Many also stayed in the same rooming houses. The resulting document was the U.S. Constitution, which set up Congress along with other essential institutions of government.

Scott Bomboy is editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Four amendments that almost made it into the Constitution
Presidential Madness: Favorite historical secretary of state
Obamacare’ biggest challenge may be coming this fall
The court, marriage and high expectations

Source: Alexander Marks (Wikimedia Commons).

The House and Senate are trying to find common ground on a continuing resolution to fund the government until October. If a deal isn’t reached by next Friday, parts of the government will shut down until a compromise is reached.

Currently, the Senate is amending a House bill that includes language that would force the Postal Service to keep delivering the mail on Saturdays, a measure the Postal Service hopes to end in a money-saving move.

The House bill references a rider stating that, “Provided further, that six-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level.” That rider has been part of spending legislation for 30 years.

Related Story: Can the Postal Service legally end Saturday deliveries?

But in the House, two representatives were divided on what that language means.

Representative Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, said that the language means, in no uncertain terms, that the Postal Service must keep six-day delivery.

“The Continuing Resolution is clear; there will be six day delivery for the rest of the fiscal year,” said Serrano in a statement. “This bill included advance appropriations for the Postal Service which continued the provision requiring six day delivery. There is no longer any possibility of misinterpretation: according to their own legal analysis these steps require the Postal Service to maintain six day delivery.”

However, Representative Darrell Issa, the House Oversight Committee Chairman, said through a spokesman that the language is vague enough to allow the Postal Service to move forward with ending Saturday delivery.

“USPS has the authority to implement the modified Saturday delivery plan under current law and retains that authority if this provision were to be continued in its current form,” said Ali Ahmad, an Issa spokesman.

In the wacky world of Washington, Serrano voted against the House continuing resolution (even though he supported the part about the Postal Service), while Issa voted for it.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid is already on record objecting to the end of Saturday mail delivery.

Senator Bob Corker also issued a statement criticizing the continuing resolution from the House.

“If this action is carried through, Congress will be hamstringing the Postal Service, hastening its demise and probably adding additional financial burdens to U.S. taxpayers,” said Corker.

But in February, a group of 24 senators publicly questioned the end of Saturday mail delivery. The group was mostly Democrats and expressed concerns about rural delivery, and the Postal Service ending weekend deliveries without congressional approval.

“We believe your proposal does not comply with the existing statutory requirement to continue six-day delivery and rural delivery mail services at no less than the 1983 levels,” the letter said. “As such it is in violation of P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, which extends the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, P.L. 112-74. Section 101(a) of P.L. 112-175 specifically extends the funding levels of the FY12 appropriations law, “under the authority and conditions provided” in the previous funding resolution, except as otherwise stated in the CR.”

The post office was established by the Constitution in 1787. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, and gives Congress the power to establish and maintain post offices, along with roads to support the service.

The Postal Service believes some $2 billion annually can be saved by scaling back its Saturday services.

In February, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe told a Senate committee that the change was needed because of “urgent” financial problems. Senators also learned that Donahoe had been advised by a lawyer that the language of the current continuing resolution allowed him to stop Saturday delivery without congressional approval.

In 2006, Congress passed a law that required the Postal Service to fund retirement health benefits in advance. The Postal Service says the prefunding requirement, along with the growth of email, have kept it from being a profitable business.

And while the continuing resolution will keep some payments flowing from the federal government to the Postal Service, the agency faces a potentially bigger problem this fall.

Bloomberg News reported in January that the Postal Service could run out of money by October 2013.

One interesting item from this week is news that additional funding for the Postal Service could be in a proposed fiscal year 2014 budget being drawn up by the Senate. It includes an undetermined amount of spending on Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

White House dogged by tour cancellation critics

10 birthday facts about President Andrew Jackson

Constitution Check: Does the president have a duty to defend every law?

The Sistine Chapel.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear-cut answer, in part because of the unique nature of the Vatican, and the historic unlikelihood of an American becoming pope.

But this time, two Americans have generated a lot of talk in Rome in the days leading up to the conclave.

The charismatic Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York, garnered his fair share of attention in the past week, but another American was seen as a more viable contender.

Sean P. O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, was named the favorite in a newspaper poll in Milan, and not just by readers. (They picked O’Malley over Milan’saArchbishop Angelo Scola, by 36 percent to 18 percent.) A panel of eight experts pegged O’Malley, with five votes, as their favorite.

Most observers see Scola, Cardinal Odilo Scherer of Brazil, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bersone of Italy as the top candidates.

The fact that an American is listed among the contenders is a noteworthy event. But if they were actually chosen, what would happen to their U.S. citizenship?

The Constitution does prescribe rules on titles of nobility, but that mostly deals with the case of the U.S. government and states granting noble titles (which it can’t do).

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, says:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

That doesn’t apply to the pope, who functions as an international head of state for the Vatican.

Title 8, Section 14881 of the United States Code does talk specifically about how Americans can lose their citizenship if they serve in a foreign government.

A person loses American citizenship if “an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required” to serve in a foreign government, or if a person “acquires the nationality of such foreign state.”

The State Department also has a list of requirements about citizenship that explains potential expatriating acts and the appeals process.

The Vatican’s unique nature and the pope’s dual role as a head of state and head of the Roman Catholic Church muddles the picture.

The Vatican City State was formed in 1929 after the Lateran Treaty was signed by the Holy See and Italy. The Vatican City State became an independent nation under the pact.

As of 2012, the Holy See said there were 594 people who had Vatican citizenship; 238 of those people had dual citizenship.

A Library of Congress blog post in 2012 analyzed the Vatican’s system for determining citizenship and says it is unique in several ways.

“Due to the special nature of the Vatican City State, the traditional factors utilized to acquire citizenship (ius sanguinis, ius loci, or ius soli) are not applicable and are not found in its regulations. In lieu of them, the Vatican City State has opted for other factors that are more appropriate for its structure and political organization,” said Dante Figueroa, a senior legal information analyst at the Law Library of Congress.

The law states that citizenship can be granted to cardinals who live in the Vatican City State or persons who reside there by reason of their office or service.

Pope Benedict XVI retained his German citizenship along with his Vatican citizenship.

According to a press release from the city of Regensberg, where he resided in Germany, the pope emeritus is a citizen of Pentling in the Upper Palatinate, as well as the Vatican.

The officials from Germany explained that since Pope Benedict XVI didn’t apply for Vatican citizenship (it was granted instead), he didn’t lose his German citizenship and could vote in German elections.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Honoring the only dog to be awarded the Purple Hear

Constitution Check: Could the president legally order a drone strike inside the U.S.?

Two tales of the Constitution, marijuana and guns

Source: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Nullification is the idea that in a system of state and federal laws, one law passed by a government can be overruled by another.

For example, if the state of New Jersey barred watching reality TV shows and an amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights to watch “Storage Wars,” one law trumps the other.

In the case of gun control, a Pennsylvania state lawmaker, State Senator John H. Eichelberger Jr., is introducing a law that makes it illegal for the federal government to enforce its gun control laws within his state.

Eichelberger joins another state legislator, Daryl Metcalfe, in proposing Pennsylvania laws that seek to nullify the enforcement of federal laws. Other states have also proposed their own nullification laws that would trump federal gun laws.

And in the case of marijuana, nine former leaders of the Drug Enforcement Administration said in a statement that they want the federal government to nullify newly passed state laws in Colorado and Washington, which legalize recreational marijuana use under controlled circumstances.

Former DEA administrator Peter Bensinger said nullification was a “no brainer.”

“It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed in federal court yet,” said Bensinger.

What each story has in common is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2, states that in a conflict of state and federal laws, the federal law is the supreme law of the land:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Some proponents of states’ rights and the 10th Amendment don’t agree with the concept. But when challenged, the Supreme Court has decided that federal laws can’t be nullified by the states.

During the 1950s, a group of Southern states passed laws to block the desegregation of public schools. The court ruled in Cooper v. Aaron that the state of Arkansas couldn’t nullify a federal law and that the court had the power to make that decision.

States can contest the constitutionality of a federal law through the court system, and hope that a law is overturned. But they can’t decide to ignore a federal law—at least in theory.

That’s where the marijuana controversy comes into play in Colorado and Washington state, and in states that have passed their own medical marijuana laws.

The current federal statute on controlled substances makes medical and recreational marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance that is illegal nationally.

However, 18 states have made medical marijuana legal, and Colorado and Washington are now allowing people to smoke pot for fun under certain circumstances.

The administration of President Barack Obama faces a problem. Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t made a decision yet about taking Colorado and Washington to court to invalidate their recreational marijuana laws.

If Holder does go to court, what does that mean for the states that have medical marijuana laws on the books? The attorney general has targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in recent years, but not smokers. Will those states also face lawsuits?

What if the Obama administration reaches a compromise with Colorado and Washington to let parts of their recreational marijuana laws stand?

Those state laws effectively nullify federal law, which isn’t exactly a precedent that the Justice Department would want to set for states that ignore possible federal gun control laws.

There’s some hope that Congress may act to change the federal statutes about marijuana use. And it seems unlikely, at this point, that major gun control laws will be coming from Congress in the near future.

But that could change if a compromise is reached in Congress on background checks on gun purchases. Several states strongly oppose the idea, and some local lawmakers have proposed state nullification laws to make gun registration illegal.

In some cases, the proposed state laws provide for the arrest of any federal official trying to enforce a gun-control law.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Two tales of the Constitution, marijuana and guns

A third constitution that briefly controlled part of America

Evidence suggests Thurmond 24-hour filibuster record is debatable

The Senate currently uses a “silent” filibuster system where a member threatens to filibuster. A cloture vote is then required, with a 60-vote majority, to override the filibuster and limit debate time.

Link: Fun filibuster factoids

The last major talking filibuster in the Senate was in December 2010, when Senator Bernard Sanders spoke for more than eight hours to protest a tax law. That was the longest filibuster since 1992.

On Wednesday, Paul, with help from about a dozen other senators, including Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, and Ted Cruz, was attempting to block John Brennan’s nomination as CIA director. Paul was also upset by comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder that there could be extraordinary circumstances where drones could be used in an attack on American soil.

Politico said that Paul had seized on a technicality that could allow him to keep the floor as long as he can speak. It said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t file paperwork that would allow him to break into Paul’s filibuster for a vote to end it.

The inclusion of Lee, Moran, and Cruz, three other senators with Tea Party connections, as “guest answerers” of questions could give the filibuster some staying power. Also, a much-hyped snowstorm for the Washington area fizzled out on Wednesday, after most of the federal government closed its doors.

One Democrat, Ron Wyden, also joined the filibuster, to protest domestic use of attack drones. Then fellow Republicans like Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey got into the act. By the end on early Thursday morning, about a dozen senators had taken part in the event.

The Washington Post reported that at 1 p.m., when Paul entered the second hour of his filibuster, only 30 people were in the Senate gallery.

But the filibuster had picked up a sizable audience on Twitter, as people were able to watch Paul on C-SPAN2’s live feed on TV and online.

The House of Representatives doesn’t use filibusters anymore. When the House got bigger, it moved away from filibusters in 1842.

In its original form, which Paul is using, a senator can “grab” the Senate floor and stall a bill by speaking for as long as he or she could stay conscious.

The scene with Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a famous example of a talking filibuster, where Smith’s character collapses after a 24-hour filibuster in the 1939 film.

A famous real-life filibuster involved Senator Strom Thurmond, who held the Senate floor for 24 hours in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

According to the Senate website, a group of senators also staged a tag-team 57-day filibuster to protest the Civil Rights Act of 1964, until a successful cloture vote shut down the filibuster.

Filibusters and similar tactics aren’t new in the world of politics. One of the first recorded masters of the filibusters was the ancient Roman politician Cato the Younger.

In Rome’s senate, Cato would speak until sunset, which was the official ending of a Senate session. One of his last filibusters was to oppose Julius Caesar’s return to Rome in 60 B.C.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

How the librarian of Congress controls your cell phone’s future

Study shows Twitter doesn’t really reflect political reality

Background checks may be ground zero for gun control

What happens if the federal government shuts down on March 27?

James H. Billington. Source: Library of Congress.

Article I, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress power to regulate copyright. But the semi-obscure law that covers phone-unlocking certainly doesn’t date back to the time of James Madison or even Alexander Graham Bell.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) sprung up during the Clinton era and was designed to protect copyrighted content on the Internet and computer devices, while not curbing freedom of expression.

Digital publishers like Constitution Daily and any business that publishes digital content are very aware of the “take down” procedure under the law. If someone has a copyright claim to an image, audio recording, or video, the copyright holder files a DMCA notice and the publisher takes down the content until the issue is resolved.

Another part of the law was designed to curb pirated video, audio, and software on the Internet and on digital devices.

That’s where the librarian of Congress comes in. The DMCA says that the librarian, as the final authority on copyrights, can grant exemptions to the law every three years.

Wireless providers use copyrights to make phones they sell proprietary to their own networks, by requiring a code to “unlock” the phone for use on competitors’ networks. One reason is that a provider may sell a phone to you at a deep discount in exchange for a two-year service contract.

Link: Latest carrier unlocking costs

Last October, Librarian of Congress James Hadley Billington (of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania) decided to end an exemption that allowed people to unlock their cellphones without their carrier’s permission. The updated rule went into effect in January amid much fuss in the digital world.

So now, if you have a locked phone, you need to negotiate a deal with your provider. Some will provide an unlock code after your current contract expires, or even sooner. (Policies vary among carriers.)

In his ruling, which remains in effect for three years, Billington said today’s consumers can just buy an unlocked phone on the market. Typically, the markup on an unlocked phone can be 300 percent, and you still need to buy a monthly service plan for voice, texting, and Internet access.

But another key point is that Billington’s ruling makes it illegal to unlock a phone without a carrier’s permission.

Since the rules went into effect, the White House received more than 100,000 signatures on an online petition to overturn the ruling.

On Monday, the Obama administration responded with a statement supporting the unlocking of all phones after a consumer meets a contractual requirement. The administration also supports the idea of tablets like the iPad being unlocked in a similar way.

“Neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation,” said David Edelman, White House Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy.

On Tuesday, Billington responded with a low-key rebuke to the president, saying that the review process that led to the ban was executed within the DMCA.

“Rulemaking can often serve as a barometer for broader policy concerns and broader policy action. The most recent rulemaking has served this purpose,” the statement said.

In Congress, the idea of some controlled form of unlocking is getting bipartisan support.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) supports the idea and Senator  Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is proposing a new unlocking law.

Representative Darrell Issa (R-California), an influential force in Congress, has also supported an unlocking law, but he’s also voiced concerns about a rise in cellphone prices if people can break their contracts with providers.

For now, the librarian’s ruling stands, but the administration did drop one hint about how it could get around Congress to make it easier for people to get unlocked phones.

It said the Federal Communications Commission, an executive-branch agency, should have a role in the process.

The FCC is involved in rulemaking for cellphone plans. One theory, explained on the industry website eWeek, is that the FCC could require providers to give permission to consumers who want an unlock code—no questions asked.

That could be problematic, says CNET’s Marguerite Reardon in her review of the current situation, because the FCC should work to support laws passed by Congress.

Reardon says the actual legality of the DCMA and unlock codes could be questioned.

“Until the law is actually tested in court or until Congress amends it to make it more clear, it’s difficult to say whose interpretation is correct,” she said in an article that lays out the broad debate about the issue.

The stakes in the debate are huge. According to Pew Research, more than 45 percent of American adults own a smartphone, and 31 percent have computer tablets. The value of the wireless services industry in the U.S. is about $211 billion.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Dred Scott decision still resonates today
Study shows Twitter doesn’t really reflect political reality
Background checks may be ground zero for gun control
What happens if the federal government shuts down on March 27?