Guarantee Agreement Clause

In Colegrove v. Green (1946), a challenge to the state`s legal powers, the Supreme Court ruled that the republican form of the government clause could not serve as the basis for challenging the state`s greening in court. [1] The Tribunal, however, ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) that The remedies brought by Parliament under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment could be decided in court, the issue of equal protection being separate from the challenge to the guarantee clause. The guarantee clause, also known as the form of Republican government, appears in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and requires the United States to guarantee each state some form of republican government and to offer protection against foreign invasion and domestic violence. The United States guarantees each state of this Union a form of republican government and protects each of them from invasion; and at the request of the legislative or executive branch (if the legislative branch cannot be summoned) against domestic violence. However, subsequent constitutional amendments restrict the power of states to limit the right to vote, such as the fifteenth (no refusal of the right to vote on the basis of race), nineteenth (no refusal of the right to vote on the basis of sex), twenty-fourth (no tax on polls) and the twenty-sixth amendment (introducing a minimum age of eighteen). [1] It goes without saying that the guarantee clause obliges states to produce governments through electoral processes, unlike inherited monarchies, dictatorships or military regimes. [1] In cases like Luther v. Borden (1849) and Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v.

Oregon (1912), the Supreme Court held that the application of the guarantee clause is a political issue not too unfairly, which must be decided by Congress or by the president instead of the courts. [3] The guarantee clause reflects a founding conception of the republican, which involves governments based on majority power. [1] [2] As stated in Federalist No. 57: “The choice to obtain leadership is the characteristic policy of the republican government.” James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, wrote in Federalist No. 43: “If a popular uprising were to take place in one of the states, the others would be able to oppress it. If abuse creeps into a game, it will be reformed by those who remain healthy. In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause , the Supreme Court reiterated that the guarantee clause was not a legitimate matter likely to be tried. [2] Cases like Luther v.

Borden considered the guarantee clause to be a political issue that needed to be resolved by Congress. It was on this basis that the Congress of the Reconstruction Period dissolved ten governments during the peace period and placed them under military rule. The law, known as the First Reconstruction Act, ruled that these states were non-Republican under the guarantee clause. [4] [5] The Supreme Court accepted the dissolution in Georgia against Stanton (1868). [6] Subsequently, Congress also excluded elected deputies (a power recognized in Luther) when faced with “an electoral quarrel created by state measures aimed at suppressing black turnout.” [6] However, at the time of creation, states maintained the right to vote on the basis of race, gender and property. [1] Madison suggested that these existing practices could be pursued in the states he called “existing republican forms.” [2] Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly gave states the power to decide electoral qualifications. [1] In pacific States Telephone, the Supreme Court was asked to invalidate referendums (a form of direct democracy instead of representative democracy) authorized by state law, on the grounds that they violated the republican form of the obligation to govern the guarantee clause.

Comments are closed.