Tag: history

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.

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.

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.