Constitutional Accountability Center

Last updated

The Constitutional Accountability Center(CAC) is a non-profit think tank located in Washington, D.C., that seeks to advance a progressive interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. [1] [2] The group has filed numerous lawsuits against former President Donald Trump. [3] [4]

Contents

History

CAC was launched on June 3, 2008. Its predecessor organization was the Community Rights Counsel. Both organizations were founded and led by Douglas Kendall. Advisors to CAC have included Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, and Walter E. Dellinger III. [5]

Philosophy and methodology

CAC is a proponent of "New Textualism", a school of thought focused on the text, structure, and enactment history of the language of the Constitution. [6] The organization makes legal arguments based in constitutional text and history, with particular emphasis on the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. [7] CAC founder and president Douglas Kendall has stated his belief that a renewed focus on the Civil War Amendments can help to reveal the Constitution as a progressive document. [8] A CAC publication about New Textualism states that "the Constitution provides concrete and progressive answers to many important questions." [9]

CAC heads "Constitutional Progressives," a coalition anchored by the Center for American Progress and People for the American Way. [10]

Litigation

U.S. Supreme Court cases in which CAC has filed amici curiae briefs include:

Publications

CAC's Issue Briefs Series provides commentary and analysis on current constitutional and political issues, including, voting rights, campaign finance, citizenship, corporate rights, and federal power. CAC has also published Issue Briefs and released several reports on the success of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business interests before the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. [11]

Donors

In 2018, the organization had about $4.3 million in revenue. [12]

The Wyss Foundation is one of the organization's financial supporters.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights, civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Originalism</span> United States Constitutional interpretation doctrine

In the context of United States law, originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document. Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution prohibits segregated public schools in the District of Columbia. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling was reargued on December 8–9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as Brown. The Bolling decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second Brown opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed". In Bolling, the Court did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but rather held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the Court held that the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive, establishing the reverse incorporation doctrine.

Common Cause is a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., with chapters in 35 states. It was founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, a Republican, who was the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the administration of President Lyndon Johnson as well as chair of the National Urban Coalition, an advocacy group for minorities and the working poor in urban areas. As initially founded, Common Cause was prominently known for its efforts to bring about an end to the Vietnam War and lower the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Lochner era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". The court did this by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights. The era takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ku Klux Klan Act</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other terrorist organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by United States President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Living Constitution</span> U.S. Constitutional interpretation

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the U.S constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporary society should be considered in the constitutional interpretation of phrases. The Constitution is referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and the situation. Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of California</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the U.S. state of California

The Constitution of California is the primary organizing law for the U.S. state of California, describing the duties, powers, structures and functions of the government of California. California's constitution was drafted in both English and Spanish by American pioneers, European settlers, and Californios and adopted at the 1849 Constitutional Convention of Monterey, following the American Conquest of California and the Mexican–American War and in advance of California's Admission to the Union in 1850. The constitution was amended and ratified on 7 May 1879, following the Sacramento Convention of 1878–79.

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eleven southern states established poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; five states continued to require poll taxes for voters in state elections. By this ruling, the Supreme Court banned the use of poll taxes in state elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Constitutional Rights</span> U.S. nonprofit organization

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a progressive non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was founded in 1966 by Arthur Kinoy, William Kunstler and others particularly to support activists in the implementation of civil rights legislation and to achieve social justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brennan Center for Justice</span>

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a nonprofit law and public policy institute. The organization is named after Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Described as liberal, the Brennan Center advocates for a number of progressive public policy positions, including raising the minimum wage, opposing voter ID laws, and calling for public funding of elections. The organization opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofits.

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of states.

James Bopp Jr. is an American conservative lawyer. He is most known for his work associated with election laws, anti-abortion model legislation, and campaign finance.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5–4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Move to Amend</span> American nonprofit organization

Move to Amend is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization that seeks to blunt corporate power by amending the United States Constitution to end corporate personhood and state that money is not speech. The group was created in response to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make expenditures from their general treasuries supporting or opposing candidates for political office, arguing that the Court's decision disrupts the democratic process by granting disproportionate influence to the wealthy. Move to Amend advocates for the "We the People" Amendment, currently in Congress as H.J.Res. 48, to establish that constitutional rights are reserved for natural persons only and require the regulation and disclosure of spending in U.S. elections.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court civil rights case which concerned the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. Pengelly, Martin (October 11, 2019). "Trump financial records must be given to Congress, appeals court rules". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  2. Blum, Bill (August 1, 2019). "Supremely Conservative". The Progressive. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  3. Polantz, Katelyn; Herb, Jeremy (July 8, 2019). "Congressional Democrats subpoena Trump organization". CNN. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  4. Paul, Deanna (October 15, 2019). "A 'whackadoodle' court ruling about Trump's tax records could ignite a 'constitutional crisis'". Washington Post. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  5. Mauro, Tony. "Liberals launch firm for constitutional rights", Legal Times , 6 June 2008.
  6. Rosen, Jeffrey. "In Defense of the Constitution: The Battle for Obamacare", The New Republic , 8 June 2012.
  7. Bravin, Jess. "Rethinking Original Intent", The Wall Street Journal , 14 March 2009.
  8. CAC Official Website
  9. Ryan, James. Laying Claim to the Constitution: The Promise of New Textualism Archived 2012-12-24 at the Wayback Machine , Constitutional Accountability Center, 2012.
  10. "Constitutional Progressives: Taking America's Charter Back from the Tea Party". Constitutional Accountability Center. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
  11. Liptak, Adam. "Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests", The New York Times , 18 December 2010.
  12. Pro Publica, "Tax returns of the Constitutional Accountability Center", retrieved April 25, 2021