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 essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Seven & Eight

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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.  (source)

This one was a bit harder for me to understand. This amendment deals with civil cases, not criminal ones.  Civil trials are not usual, according to the National Constitution center its only been used in 1% of civil cases.  Most civil cases are decided upon by judges.

This does however protect the use of juries in civil trials, and limits the Judge’s ability to overturn jury responses to cases.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (source)

This protects people from being charged excessively for fines/bail, and not being treated unfairly. It’s probably also one of the more straightforward amendments.  There is debate on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (which apparently was referring to torture from the arguments given at the time).  This is often cited in arguments against the death penalty, or other methods of modern punishment such as solitary confinement.

It also brings to question the right of the US government to use torture, and other methods most would consider cruel on non-US citizens during time of War.  Beyond International agreements, do we have to right within our own guidelines to inflict this on other people?

I personally am against the Death penalty as I do not think it works as a deterrent, and far too many people are released later in life due to new evidence for me to trust convictions enough to subscribe to the penalty.  Also our current justice system has filled our prisons with minor infractions that don’t deserve lengthy time nor is it a good reason to execute someone to free up prison space.

I’m also against torture as it also has not been shown as a reliable way of getting information.   I feel that not only am against these things as they are logically unsound, I also am against them morally.

 

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.