Lee vs. Bridgewater Constitution Pop Quiz 

Thus, City Weekly decided that the best thing to do for their primary preview was quiz them on constitutional trivia and ask them to interpret a few constitutional principles.

Trivia (One point for each correct answer in a question)

1. Utah was the final state needed to ratify which amendment?

ML: 21st (Repealing prohibition)

TB: 16th

Correct: 21st. As Bridgewater said, “That’s ironic.”

2. Name the three Constitutional Convention delegates who refused to sign the Constitution.

ML: George Mason. All three were from Virginia ... maybe a guy named Lee? Not sure on the third.

TB: I don’t think George Washington signed it ... I don’t know. I give up.

Correct: George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

3. What 13 colonies were asked to send delegates? (Correct: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut)

ML: Named all 13.

TB: Named all 13, but also said Ohio and was given a one-point deduction.

4. Who approved the seal of the United States that is still used today?

ML: No idea.

TB: No idea.

Correct: John Hanson, president under the Articles of Confederation.

5. How many amendments have been ratified in the month of December?

ML: 13

TB: 15

Correct: 12. The Bill of Rights, plus the 13th and 21st amendments.

Trivia Score:

ML: 15/21 points.

TB: 12/21 points.

Short answers
1. If you think the federal government has exceeded its power under the Constitution, how would you phrase a test to determine the limits of its power?

ML: Any power appropriately exercised by Congress needs to be one that can be traced to the text of the Constitution. as it was understood by the founding generation. By itself, that isn't going to answer every question, but it frames the analysis. Many, if not most, federal laws and federal programs trace this authority to the commerce clause. More laws trace their origin to that provision than any other. I think, with the commerce clause, that standard I just described would be helpful in that it would provide some meaningful limits. The founding generation would have understood that clause as giving Congress the power to make uniform interstate transactions.

TB: I think the enumerated powers act is a good guideline. If it's not specifically allowed in Article 1, Section 8, then it should be left to the states as per the Bill of Rights. I would say the states should be have the first level of responsibility, unless it's specifically allowed in Article 1.

2. Does the federal government have the power to criminalize marijuana possession even in a state that allows medicinal marijuana usage? Why?

5. Can a suspected drug dealer or a suspected terrorist be questioned without being given Miranda warnings? If those are different answers, then how do we tell the difference between a suspected terrorist and a suspected drug dealer? (By drug dealer, we're talking about drug lords or cartel bosses, not the basement pot dealer selling dime bags).

ML: The answer to both questions is yes. A suspect can be questioned without Miranda warnings if they are subject to what is known as a carry stop. They could be questioned if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a law has been broken, the officer can initiate a brief stop and ask questions to the extent necessary to ascertain, to confirm or dispel, the reasonable, articulable suspicion. But that conversation can only continue last as long as reasonably necessary. So yes, you can question somebody without Mridanda warnings. Miranda warnings are only issued upon arrest.

TB: I believe that people who are deemed terrorists should be held as enemy combatants and tried in a military tribunal, so they would not have the Miranda rights. If they are U.S. Citizens, they certainly have those rights if they're arrested. But there's a fine line between deciding, in the modern world, if we have a terrorist who also holds American citizenship. We have to tread lightly to recognize those rights, but also to recognize it's a national security issue if someone is performing terrorist acts against the United States. The cartel example, if they're not an American citizen and deemed an enemy of the United States then you would have to push them into the enemy combatant arena. It depends on how they're captured and arrested, I suppose. If it's a military effort, then those captures would be in the form of enemy combatant. But if they're captured by the [Drug Enforcement Agency] or local law enforcement on American soil, then I think they are usually read those rights.

8. If a religious belief conflicts with federal law, which should take precedence? What about state laws?

ML: There's nothing that government can do to punish religious belief or prohibit religious belief. The question, phrased as it is ... the only way to answer that question is to say religious belief takes precedence. Neither federal or state governments may, consistent with the 1st Amendment as its interpreted by the Supreme Court, can prohibit any religious belief. If we're talking about conduct based on religious belief, then whether or not that conduct will protected by the 1st Amendment's free-exercise clause will likely turn on whether that law is religiously neutral, and generally applicable, standard that isn't trying to regulate a religious belief.

ML: Alexander Hamilton. He was clearly a bright guy, but his expansive reading of the spending clause has always bothered me.

TB: Alexander Hamilton. He was oriented more towards a big state then smaller states, and he tended to be very argumentative. He had a temper, not that that disqualifies someone. But he was not in the same frame as [Thomas] Jefferson, [James] Madison or [John] Adams in terms of public service. He was more self-interested.

Josh Loftin:

click image