Pages

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment makes it clear that the federal government only has exclusive powers over what is explicitly delegated to it within the constitution, and everything that falls outside of the constitution can be retained by states. This does not mean that the federal government has no control over states actions, though. There is a reason that the drinking age in every state is 21, and every states speed limits are relatively the same. Congress can withhold funding from a certain state if it makes certain changes that the government does not want, or does not want spilling over to other states.



This video is an interview with a congressman about the tenth amendment. He is talking about the federal government encroaching on states rights under the tenth amendment such as education and health care. He believes that the government should have no say in these issues at all. It is hard to decide whether or not the government making federal standards in education or regulating things like healthcare is constitutional or not, because there is no way the founding fathers could have known about how our educational system or healthcare system operates or is funded. I think a lot of the debate about this amendment stems from whether or not we feel the constitution should be interpreted literally or is somewhat of a living document.



This cartoon is depicting the recent controversy over medical marijuana. This is an example of where the tenth amendment protected the states rights to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Amendment 9

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.