Tag: constitution

Posted in essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Seven & Eight

Posted on by sokorra

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

Posted on by sokorra

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

Posted on by sokorra

*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

Posted on by sokorra

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.

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Three

Posted on by sokorra

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.  (source)

This is a reactionary Amendment.  Basically, during the time right before the Revolution (and during, I’m sure), the British tended to tell people that they needed to share their homes with their troops during war time.  When the war ended, the British decided to keep on quartering soldiers in private homes during peace.  Its one of the items that started warming up the revolution. It’s hard to imagine that happening today, but the men who wrote this document wanted to make sure it didn’t.

There isn’t much to say on this one.  As far as I know it’s pretty much never debated that the Government could actually come to your home and say “Guess what, Roomies!?”

For a more modern example, I googled the third amendment and found a case in Nevada where a homeowner claimed the local police violated their third amendment rights by forcibly invading their home to use it against a neighbor they were investigating and staying for 9 hours.

It has also started to come up to relate to surveillance state by police/government but its debatable on whether the amendment would include “cyber soldiers.”

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Two

Posted on by sokorra

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. (Source)

The Second Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791)is perhaps the most abused, debated and known Amendment.  I honestly thought about skipping this one till the end, but in the end decided to stick to the order they came in.

I’m pro-gun control.  I am not however against people having guns.  I’ve always believed this law is about being able to form a community militia.  It does not bother me that people own guns.  Some people hunt, some people use it for protection.  I do however think that there are some common sense gun laws that could go into affect that don’t affect one’s right to bear arms.

Both sides use this one a lot.  The Pro-gun lobby seems to believe that any form of gun-control (even something as restricting gun magazine sizes) is an infringement.  The Pro-Gun control group has many facets ranging from the mid-grounders like myself who just want tighter background checks, better regulation of gun ownership (basically making sure people who buy guns actually know how to use them) to the stricter varieties who want guns gone all together outside militia groups.

This Amendment protects the right of the citizen to protect themselves from military take-over. It protects the right of small militia groups to form.   It’s debatable if it protects against certain guns (Like AK-47s and more militaristic weapons) being regulated.

It also brings up the debate of whether Amendments can be timeless.  That some laws/Amendments might have to be altered, as technology improves and the country as a whole realises the original intent needs adjusting (there are several amendments which are basically  doing just that).

This is a hot button issue.

My personal belief is that one should only have the guns you need to protect yourself and/or hunt.  Unless you are some collector getting antique guns, you really don’t need to arm yourself like you are your own one-person militia.  And if you want a gun, you should take the time to learn how to properly use it, clean it and store it.  I see way too many stories on the news about people accidently getting shot because they didn’t clean it right, or they didn’t store it right and some kid got into it, or they did something stupid and ended up shooting their foot off.

I know people who believe the opposite, ranging from more open about gun use to those who make me wish guns were taken away so they didn’t have them.  I also believe this Amendment protects your right to own a gun, not your right not to have guns safety laws and regulations.

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: One

Posted on by sokorra

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. (Source)

This amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, has a lot in it.

  1. Congress can not make a law that either establishes one religion over another or prohibiting people’s ability to practice the religion of their choice.
  2. Congress can’t take away the freedom of speech, or the citizens right to have free press.
  3. Congress can’t stop a assembly if it’s peaceful even if it’s against something they did.

 

This is where people usually go to when they try to explain why laws that are obviously religion based in nature are unconstitutional, even if you believe our country was founded on Christian principles. This was a reaction to Britain’s state religion and how alternative religions including alternative practices of the state religion were often considered criminal.  Many of the first colonists were coming because they wanted to practice their religion in peace in the way they choose.  And this right protects this. It also protects those who believe differently then you from being forced to worship in the same way if you are the one with power.

This does not however outlaw a lawmaker using his religion to influence his decisions, even if we disagree with them.

This amendment also protects our freedom of speech.  Which yes, does mean we can say what we want to say. We can all have opinions.  This does not however protect you from receiving consequences from utilizing your freedom.  I have seen people say stupid and/or cruel things and when they are confronted scream FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Ok, that means you have the right to say what you want to say, not that people can’t react to it.  Mostly this refers to the citizenry’s right to protest it’s government.  To be able to disagree with our leaders without being arrested for it.  To have ability to form our news organizations without it being controlled by our government.

The third element of this amendment is to make it so the government can’t arrest people who are peacefully protesting the government.  This has been a challenge for some smaller governments as they have long-term protests that disrupt things that have no relation to the protest.  It goes with the Freedom of speech.  You have the right to protest, but if you do something stupid with your freedom you might end up having consequences.

 

Posted in American History, history, Politics

The Amendments: An Intro

Posted on by sokorra

I’ve noticed that in a lot of the recent elections that amendments of various kinds have come up on all sides on whether you should or shouldn’t vote for a person.  And While I have read the constitution before, I never really mesmerized the amendments.  Therefore I have decided to go through each one and write a post on each one, hopefully completing this series before the November Election.

This is primarily a place for me to write my thoughts on the amendment and put in what I learned.  Feel free to comment, but remember to be polite especially to anyone else who comments.  Politics can get under people’s skins pretty fast, especially when one has a differing opinion.

There are 27 amendments, although 33 have been proposed.  In order to be official, it must be ratified by a majority of the states after going through a congressional vote and being sent to the states to sign. Continue reading “The Amendments: An Intro” →