Posted in American History, Awareness, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Fifteen

SECTION 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SECTION 2

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(Source)

This amendment is pretty straightforward.  It was passed by Congress in 1869, and ratified a year later.

Though the 14th amendment protected the right to vote, this adds to the law prohibiting restriction of voting.  It still does not include the right to vote to women, but it does give the right to vote to African-Americans as it was no longer legal to discriminate against race.

There are several amendments tied to prohibited discrimination against voters. the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments all relate to voting rights.

I found it interesting to learn that previous different states had different voting restrictions.  Some would allow all citizens (including women and free blacks) the right to vote, others would require you to own a certain amount of property.  The 14th & 15th amendments nationalized voting rights, outlawing most restrictions.

There is an argument now about Voter ID laws, and how they may or may not be constitutionally sound.  Some believe that this violates the 14th amendment, and possibly the 15th as it seems to unfairly target some groups within the community and in some places possible racial issues exist.

I’m personally neutral on that subject because on one hand I can see how those who don’t have easy access to the DMV would find it hard to get a state ID that could allow them to vote.  On the other hand, so much today requires an ID from writing checks to purchasing age-required items like Decongestant.  Its hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t have an ID.  But unless the state can guarantee easy access to get the ID, I don’t believe it should be a requirement to vote.  Especially considering that the so called fraud its meant to prevent is usually very rare and often enough is simply the result of typographical errors or someone having the same name as a deceased person and their SS# being wrong.

Related Reading:

Myth of Voter Fraud – Brennan Center for Justice

Voter Fraud: A Massive Anti-Democratic Deception – Forbes

Our Documents:  The 15th Amendment  – you can get to see the actual amendment document

Passing of the 15th Amendment – PBS (For a special on U.S. Grant)

Posted in American History, history, Politics

The Amendments: Thirteen

This is another amendment that is probably one of the more well known ones:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(source)

The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude except in causes where one is found guilty of a crime (basically a prison sentence).  Many people believe that the Emancipation proclamation outlawed Slavery, but it didn’t.  It only outlawed it in states that had been disloyal to the union.  Which I have to wonder how they intended on enforcing that proclamation in that case.  However, a few politicians of the age recognized the issue, and decided a more formal amendment was needed.  That Slavery should be outlawed everywhere, and not just in the confederate states.

Several representatives submitted proposals, and they were combined and edited to get what you have above.  It was approved by congress in 1864, and within a year was ratified by the 3/5ths majority it needed to be.  Several states however rejected the amendment at first.  A few reversed their position within a few years, but a couple held out till the next century.

As of 1995, all the states who were states when the amendment was passed out for ratification have ratified it.  It is however surprising that it took them this long, or that they figured it was still worth looking at despite the fact that it was already ratified.  I’m sure the late arrivals felt the idea, even if it was a mute point as far as the amendment went, was still important to pass.

There are a few other amendments connected to this one, as it was realised that this amendment didn’t do enough.

 

Posted in American History, essay, Politics

The Amendments: Twelve

This amendment is a bit long, so I’m going to put a read-more cut before it. This amendment affects the Electoral college, so if you are interested in that, considering upcoming events, this is a good one to look into.

It was passed by Congress in December 1803, and ratified in June of 1804.  It relates to Article 1, Section II on the elections of Presidents and Vice Presidents as well as Amendments 20  & 22 , which actually edits part of this amendment.

Continue reading “The Amendments: Twelve”

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Eleven

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.  (source)

The eleventh amendment was the first amendment done after the Bill of Rights and the ratification of the Constitution.  It was proposed on March 4, 1794 and ratified on February 7, 1795.  So it took nearly a year to pass through Congress and get ratified by the states.

This amendment is often debated because of the range of different takes on how to follow this amendment.  Does this mean that the state governments can not be sued by their own citizens, or does it just bar out of state citizens and foreign parties?  Does it restrict what cases the federal government can view if there is an appeal.

At the very least it protects States from being sued by citizens not their own, and of being named in suits from foreign groups. Debate  on how broad or narrow this amendment is continues to this day.  It is connected to aspects of the fourteenth amendment, so that tailers what this amendment is read as.

 

 

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Nine & Ten

The 9th and 10th amendments, the last of the 1791 Bill of Rights, deal with similar concepts.  Mainly relations to rights not expressly listed by the Bill of Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (source)

This basically says they realise that the rights in the bill of Rights was not complete, that there are rights held by the people not listed and that the government can’t say “Well, its not mentioned, so you don’t have it.”

I’m sure this gets argued often enough.  It also allows for amendments to be added as times change and new problems come to the surface about various rights that should be self-evident but apparently need it bolded for some people to get.

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. (Source)

This amendment gives powers to the States.  During the foundation of this nation, there was a big argument over whether the Federal or the states governments should have the most power.  It became clear fairly early after the articles of confederation that the Federal Government had to have some power.  Yet even during the construction of the Constitution, debate waged on just how much power the Federal government has.  Its still a debate today, and actually was what caused us to have our first political parties (The Federalists who wanted a strong central government and the Democratic-Republicans who wanted a weak Federal government with most power going to the States).

Basically this amendment says if a right is not listed here, and is not prohibited by the states, its up to the individual states or local municipalities to make a judgement call.  Which of course causes all kinds of arguments when the Federal government makes decisions that a state doesn’t like.

This is also why some laws differ from state to state even though you might think its common sense.  Most states have seatbelt laws, but not all, and each state has different idea of what they want to regulate.  One such law in my own state was that we used to have a law that motorcyclists had to wear helmets.  This always made sense to me.  I figured it was one of those common sense laws put in because some people don’t use theirs.  However, the state next door had no helmet law and when I would travel through it I would be amazed to see motorcyclists with bandanas or leather caps as their only protection.

The helmet law was repealed in my state in 2003 because it was argued that was over regulation of the people.  Now if you are 21 and older and have a full license, you don’t have to wear a helmet.

Posted in American History, book reviews, bookit, history

Bookit Review: John Adams

Title: John Adams: The Man From Massachusetts
Author: Sam Goodyear
Publication date: 2014

My Grade: …

My Review:

To be honest, I am not sure how to review this novel.  However, I told myself I’d review each book I read this year, even the previously reads, so here is a review.  I got this book as part of my goal to read a biography on each of the presidents so I can retain some knowledge of what they did other than be President.  I’ve been getting them through Kindle Unlimited which so far has given me odd results.

The George Washington biography I last year was an odd biography, clearly meant for textbook format or discussion.  But it was informative. This one however was a short story, done in Adam’s point of view.  It was short, and at the end of the time spent reading I sat there wondering what I had just read.  It’s not a bio, its a short story so I will just say don’t pick this up if you are expecting to learn something.  It might be a good book to start younger kids on however.

I didn’t give it a grade mostly because it was so far from my expectations that I felt I couldn’t adequately judge this book.  I am also going to search out another biography to satisfy my Adams bio.

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Six

Again, I am a not someone with a law degree. This commentary/Analysis is purely amateur

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 wherein 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  (source)

This basically is the amendment that gives you the right to have counsel (AKA A lawyer). You have the right not to waste in jail waiting for a trail to happen, and a right to view the evidence against you, and compile evidence in your defense.

I don’t think this amendment is much debated as much as people wonder about the limitations of the law as new technology and investigative techniques come into play.

You often hear on crime shows how they hate the fact that they can’t hold anyone longer than a law given amount of time without evidence.  This protects individuals from being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, or being held on no charge whatsoever.  Sadly it still happens, as we have learned over the years from falsified evidence, mistrials and people who are found innocent decades later.

If you click on the source link, it has an essay there that goes over the history of the Sixth Amendment and why its different than other systems of justice.  Its an interesting read.

 

 

Posted in American History, essay, Politics, Uncategorized

The Amendments: Five

*DISCLAIMER*  I am not a student of law.  This is just a basic overlook of the Amendments and can not be taken as legal advice.  Also, most of these observations are my own, and I’m sure some law professor will go “BUT THAT’S NOT RIGHT”.  I’m always open to being educated about things. *END DISCLAIMER*

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 offence 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. (Source)

This is another Amendment loved by crime procedurals.  This Amendment has several parts to it.

  1.  No Person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury*The asterisk is there due to the “except in” conditions.  This part basically says that the government can’t charge a person with a crime without a grand jury overseeing it.   This is two fold.  This means that you have the right to a trial by jury when you are accused of a crime and can not be sentenced till you have one.  Doesn’t really cover minor transgressions, like speeding tickets and such.  Those you get a hearing with a Judge if it goes on too long.  I’m not a law expert but I’m not entirely sure how low down the line “infamous” covers.

    This also is why when you get the crimes that involve the DA, there is often a grand jury that reviews the evidence and decides if there is enough to go forward with a trial (with yet another jury). (Example, the Grand Jury investigation into the death of Michael Brown.)

    This line also covers that Military justice will have its own set of guidelines and rules (although they do for the most part have the same ones.)

  2. nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb 

    This line kind of confused me because I don’t know why your limb would be in danger, but this is basically the Double Jeopardy Clause.  If you are tried and decided not guilty, they can’t later on try you for the same crime. That doesn’t mean they can’t charge you for a different crime.

  3. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

    This means you don’t have to take the stand in your own defense.  It doesn’t mean you can’t, just that you don’t *Have* to.
  4.  nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law 

    Basically, they can’t take away your life, your freedom or your possessions without going through legal processes.  I’m sure this one is debatable on what it means to deprive one of liberty or property.  This is also, I think, where the laws about how long you can hold a suspect without an actual charge comes from.

  5.  nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation 

    I don’t really think this one needs explained.  The government can’t just come and take your things without either a legal warrant, or without giving you compensation for the use.

I find it interesting that there is so many clauses in this one.  There are five different elements, all relating to a person’s rights when it comes to criminal trials, and the government’s ability to enact justice.

I suggust clicking on the link for the source of the text.  It has some interesting essays on all the amendments and the clauses therein.

 

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Four

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. (Source)

 

Every Crime shows favorite Amendment.  This Amendment is why cops have to get warrants.  Otherwise they are unlawfully seizing private property.  Debate ranges on how specific warrents need to get.

This amendment protects you from having your home invaded and “evidence” taken or being arrested without due cause. This does not protect you from having to cooperate when the police come with a warrant for your computer. It also doesn’t protect you from being arrested when there is reasonable cause to think you are involved with a crime. Or when you commit a crime in their presence.

State and local governments may have looser/stricter regulations on what is required to get a warrant or what they can take as evidence when they do have one.

This amendment is probably one of the more known and discussed from the bill of rights.