The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment was very important to many of the founding fathers, because they wanted it made very clear that just because a right is not explicitely stated in the Bill of Rights does not mean that the citizens do not retain that right. There have been many cases based on this amendment. The basis of this amendment is the penumbra, or the gray area between what rights we retain vs what rights we can be denied. Most of the cases that rule on the basis of this amendment rule that we have many rights that are not specified, but garanteed through unspecified rights.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
This amendment ensures that a judge cannot post excessive bail that does not fairly match the severity of the crime. The major part of this amendment that is debated today, however, is the cruel and unusual punishment aspect. There is a lot of debate on whether or not certain activities that the US partakes in, such as capital punishment and "advanced interogation techniques". Specifically the torture that happened in Guantanamo bay has been subject to much debate until the recent executive order passed by Obama to close the base. This amendment ensures the basic freedom that your punishment should fit your crime, and that your punishment must be something that the court assigns on a regular basis, such as jail time.
This amendment ensures that a judge cannot post excessive bail that does not fairly match the severity of the crime. The major part of this amendment that is debated today, however, is the cruel and unusual punishment aspect. There is a lot of debate on whether or not certain activities that the US partakes in, such as capital punishment and "advanced interogation techniques". Specifically the torture that happened in Guantanamo bay has been subject to much debate until the recent executive order passed by Obama to close the base. This amendment ensures the basic freedom that your punishment should fit your crime, and that your punishment must be something that the court assigns on a regular basis, such as jail time.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
This amendment deals with civil suits that exceed what is now 75,000 dollars. It garauntees that in these suits a trial by jury is garaunteed, so that the judge would not be subject to bribery and the decision could not be biased. In 1938 congress amended these rules. The Judge can instruct the jury what to consider when making thier decision, and can overturn thier decision if he feels that they decided the suit the wrong way. These abilities give much more power to judges than the founders originally intended, but still allow for a fair trial in civil cases. This amendment has still not been incorporated to the states.
This amendment deals with civil suits that exceed what is now 75,000 dollars. It garauntees that in these suits a trial by jury is garaunteed, so that the judge would not be subject to bribery and the decision could not be biased. In 1938 congress amended these rules. The Judge can instruct the jury what to consider when making thier decision, and can overturn thier decision if he feels that they decided the suit the wrong way. These abilities give much more power to judges than the founders originally intended, but still allow for a fair trial in civil cases. This amendment has still not been incorporated to the states.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This amendment provides the basic rights to a speedy trial, a fair and impartial jury, and the rights of an accussed to face the witnesses testifying against him. These are many of the basic rights that we take for granted in our justice system today, but did not exist under British rule. There are only a few cases that are attributed to this amendment, the first being Escobado v Illinois 1964, which extended the right to council all the way to the interrogation chamber. The other case, Powell v Alabama in 1932 incorporated these rights to the states.
This amendment provides the basic rights to a speedy trial, a fair and impartial jury, and the rights of an accussed to face the witnesses testifying against him. These are many of the basic rights that we take for granted in our justice system today, but did not exist under British rule. There are only a few cases that are attributed to this amendment, the first being Escobado v Illinois 1964, which extended the right to council all the way to the interrogation chamber. The other case, Powell v Alabama in 1932 incorporated these rights to the states.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
One of the major parts of the fifth amendment is the protection against double jeopardy, or being charged for the same crime twice. This is a right that the colonists did not have under British rule, and something that the writers of the bill of rights wanted to ensure in the future. The movie poster above is about a woman who is framed for the murder of her husband, however he is still alive. When she gets out of prison, she realizes that she cannot be tried for his murder because of her fifth amendment right protecting her from double jeapordy. She then attempts to actually murder her husband. Of course in the real world, cases are typically not this extreme, however the amendment is still a very important part of our legal system. It ensures that a person would not be ruled innocent in court, and then tried over and over again until proven innocent. This amendment is also the basis of the Miranda rights, based on Miranda v Arizona in 1966. This basically requires officers to inform the suspects that they have the right to remain silent, or not compelled to bear witness against themselves. This amendment is the basis for many freedoms we enjoy in our legal system today.
One of the major parts of the fifth amendment is the protection against double jeopardy, or being charged for the same crime twice. This is a right that the colonists did not have under British rule, and something that the writers of the bill of rights wanted to ensure in the future. The movie poster above is about a woman who is framed for the murder of her husband, however he is still alive. When she gets out of prison, she realizes that she cannot be tried for his murder because of her fifth amendment right protecting her from double jeapordy. She then attempts to actually murder her husband. Of course in the real world, cases are typically not this extreme, however the amendment is still a very important part of our legal system. It ensures that a person would not be ruled innocent in court, and then tried over and over again until proven innocent. This amendment is also the basis of the Miranda rights, based on Miranda v Arizona in 1966. This basically requires officers to inform the suspects that they have the right to remain silent, or not compelled to bear witness against themselves. This amendment is the basis for many freedoms we enjoy in our legal system today.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This video shows a direct violation of the fourth amendment. What is most shocking to me is that the Deputy defends the woman that is attempting to search his property and take pictures as evidence, and says that the man should not be worried if he has "nothing to hide." The man is absolutely right in sayinfg that it is not an issue of whether or not he has anything to hide, but whether or not she has probable cause to search the property. This is the exact reason behind this amendment, to protect people from searches based on no evidence or probable cause. The woman even tells him that she will stay "as long as she needs to". The law enforcement officer is directly sponsering a violation of the constitution, and his lack of knowledge about the amendment is ridiculous.
This video shows a direct violation of the fourth amendment. What is most shocking to me is that the Deputy defends the woman that is attempting to search his property and take pictures as evidence, and says that the man should not be worried if he has "nothing to hide." The man is absolutely right in sayinfg that it is not an issue of whether or not he has anything to hide, but whether or not she has probable cause to search the property. This is the exact reason behind this amendment, to protect people from searches based on no evidence or probable cause. The woman even tells him that she will stay "as long as she needs to". The law enforcement officer is directly sponsering a violation of the constitution, and his lack of knowledge about the amendment is ridiculous.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
This amendment has not really been necessary since its adoption. It was originally needed as a safegaurd against homeowners being forced to house soldiers by the government in a time of war, like what the English did to the colonists during the Revolution. There has however been some question as to whether or not the hospitals and houses used as bases in the Civil War were against this amendment. Seeing as most of the field hospitals used were not mandatory, but a volunteer service, and most homes used were volunteered rather than mandated by the government, then it probably was not a violation of the amendment. Other than that, there has been no real need for this amendment.
This amendment has not really been necessary since its adoption. It was originally needed as a safegaurd against homeowners being forced to house soldiers by the government in a time of war, like what the English did to the colonists during the Revolution. There has however been some question as to whether or not the hospitals and houses used as bases in the Civil War were against this amendment. Seeing as most of the field hospitals used were not mandatory, but a volunteer service, and most homes used were volunteered rather than mandated by the government, then it probably was not a violation of the amendment. Other than that, there has been no real need for this amendment.
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The second amendment has been subject to much debate due to the vagueness in what it means to bear arms. It leaves a lot up to interpretation on what types of guns can be owned, for what purposes, and by who. This video is showing how the vagueness in the wording of the amendment contributes to the debate about gun rights in a rather humorous way.
This cartoon focuses on the first part of the amendment, and argues that the right for everyone to bear any type of weapon is probably not the original intent of the amendment. The text of the amendment is based on the premise of the people, as individual states, have the right to bear arms in terms of keeping a well regulated militia for the sake of the safety of the people, both from themselves and from the government.
The second amendment has been subject to much debate due to the vagueness in what it means to bear arms. It leaves a lot up to interpretation on what types of guns can be owned, for what purposes, and by who. This video is showing how the vagueness in the wording of the amendment contributes to the debate about gun rights in a rather humorous way.
This cartoon focuses on the first part of the amendment, and argues that the right for everyone to bear any type of weapon is probably not the original intent of the amendment. The text of the amendment is based on the premise of the people, as individual states, have the right to bear arms in terms of keeping a well regulated militia for the sake of the safety of the people, both from themselves and from the government.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I find this video both hilarious and ironic. In the video the crew try to see how man people they can get to sign a "petition" to repeal the first amendment of the US constitution. The answer is way too many. They get people to sign it by telling them that it would stop "hate speech" and would stop disagreements with the president. Most people that sign the "petition" did so in good intentions, but failed to realize the actual consequences such an action would have if what they were signing was actually a petition. Many people don't realize that while you may not agree with what another person is saying or why they are saying it, they still have the right to say it. The irony in this is that the freedom to sign this petition derives from the very thing that it says it will repeal.
This cartoon is a parody of how passionately the NRA defends the right to bear arms. If there were an agency this devoted to protecting the first amendment, it would likely look much like this...
I find this video both hilarious and ironic. In the video the crew try to see how man people they can get to sign a "petition" to repeal the first amendment of the US constitution. The answer is way too many. They get people to sign it by telling them that it would stop "hate speech" and would stop disagreements with the president. Most people that sign the "petition" did so in good intentions, but failed to realize the actual consequences such an action would have if what they were signing was actually a petition. Many people don't realize that while you may not agree with what another person is saying or why they are saying it, they still have the right to say it. The irony in this is that the freedom to sign this petition derives from the very thing that it says it will repeal.
This cartoon is a parody of how passionately the NRA defends the right to bear arms. If there were an agency this devoted to protecting the first amendment, it would likely look much like this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)