[EL] correction re vote on constitutional amendment

[Derek Muller]

As someone with absolutely no experience drafting proposed constitutional
amendments (and only slightly more experience interpreting them), I
wondered why there's an enforcement clause in Section 2 when Section 1 is,
itself, an affirmative grant of power (I think).

Browsing other constitutional amendments with enforcement clauses (e.g.,
13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, & 26), it's because there's some kind of
guarantee (e.g., the right to vote shall not be denied, prohibition, etc.)
in one portion of the amendment, and Congress is given a grant of power to
enforce that guarantee. That's in contrast to something like the 16th
Amendment, which was simply a grant of power to lay and collect taxes.

So, here, Section 1 says that "Congress and the States may regulate"--which
is not the same as "shall have power to regulate," but which I think gets
at the same thing--and then Section 2 adds the power to implement and
enforce that power to regulate.

Is there any reason for what appears to be multiple grants of power to do
the same thing? Maybe the "may regulate" is simply intended to indicate
that it is now outside of the First Amendment's scope, and the "shall have
power" is the actual grant of enforcement? Or, is there something else that
more experienced legislative drafters could explain that I'm missing?

Best,

Derek

Derek T. Muller

Associate Professor of Law

Pepperdine University School of Law

24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.

Malibu, CA 90263

+1 310-506-7058
SSRN Author Page: http://ssrn.com/author=464341


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>    Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor
> of Campaign Finance Amendment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507>
>  Posted on June 19, 2014 6:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So reports Peter Overby.
> <https://twitter.com/peteroverby/status/479358474066087936>
>
> [This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.]
>  [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62507&title=Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Subcommittee%20%5BCorrected%5D%20Votes%205-4%20in%20Favor%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Amendment&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/39ace9d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/39ace9d6/attachment.png>