Friday, December 4, 2009
27th Amendment
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
26th Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
25th Amendment
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
24th Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
23rd Amendment
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
22nd Amendment
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
21st Amendment
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal
20th Amendment
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
19th Amendment
Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
18th Amendment
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
17th Amendment
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
15th Amendment
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 power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
14th Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
13th Amendment
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
13th Amendment- The Mystical Body of Business
The Mystical Body of Business: Why Corporations Have the Rights of Persons, - Dr. Eugene McCarraher
Its not widely known or understood that, in American law, the business corporation has the status of a person. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, IBM, Exxon every incorporated firm is
considered, from a legal standpoint, no differently from human beings with real flesh and blood. Its a very peculiar person, one that can own assets and yet also be owned
and therefore sold by shareholders; one whose only legal responsibility is to make profits for its owners. (Thats not just capitalist economics; its a statutory mandate.) Now of course this raises some interesting civil rights issues: if a corporation is a person, isnt owning and selling it a violation of the 13th Amendment? If employees are parts of the corporation, arent they owned and sold in exactly the same way? Is the corporation a massive civil rights issue
waiting to be identified and resolved? This class will trace the history of how corporations became people; examine some of the consequences of this peculiar metaphysical and legal transformation; and suggest alternatives to the current legal and political structure of corporate business. While the activities of corporations are often considered almost solely from the standpoint of social justice, they should also be identified as issues involving the most basic questions about persons and their rights. This may be one instance in which taking away or considerably modifying rights would further the cause of social justice.
Its not widely known or understood that, in American law, the business corporation has the status of a person. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, IBM, Exxon every incorporated firm is
considered, from a legal standpoint, no differently from human beings with real flesh and blood. Its a very peculiar person, one that can own assets and yet also be owned
and therefore sold by shareholders; one whose only legal responsibility is to make profits for its owners. (Thats not just capitalist economics; its a statutory mandate.) Now of course this raises some interesting civil rights issues: if a corporation is a person, isnt owning and selling it a violation of the 13th Amendment? If employees are parts of the corporation, arent they owned and sold in exactly the same way? Is the corporation a massive civil rights issue
waiting to be identified and resolved? This class will trace the history of how corporations became people; examine some of the consequences of this peculiar metaphysical and legal transformation; and suggest alternatives to the current legal and political structure of corporate business. While the activities of corporations are often considered almost solely from the standpoint of social justice, they should also be identified as issues involving the most basic questions about persons and their rights. This may be one instance in which taking away or considerably modifying rights would further the cause of social justice.
Monday, October 26, 2009
12th Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
12th Amendment - Electoral College
The way the electoral college works is simple; which is not to say that it does so efficiently. Elections are held in each state, where people vote in the state they are registered in for the candidate of their choosing; who is on a list of those who are running for president. In these elections; with one being held in each and every state through out the US of A; the candidate who wins the state in question also gets all the electoral votes the state has. In all this it should be made clear that to get all the electoral votes the candidate need not do anymore then win the popular vote of the state in question. This meaning he or she need not have a 50% majority, as 35% of the vote might suffice or have a margin of victory over his closest rival of literally one vote, which on the lighter side of the argument might have come because he or she had one more son or daughter to vote for him or her. This system as history has already proven on two occasions does lend itself to the possibility that the person who wins the electoral college and by virtue of which becomes president to do so in spite of not necessarily winning the popular vote. This in a way making it that the will of the people was not really respected as the candidate most Americans voted for did not get to occupy the house on Pennsylvania avenue also known as the White House, not because enough people did not vote for him but because they did so in the wrong states.
11th Amendment
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.
11th Amendment - Exception
Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to abrogate the immunity of the state if it has made that intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute at issue and other acts, said the court. It acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court had held in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003)],
11th Amendment - Problem
The text of the Eleventh Amendment limits the power of federal courts to hear lawsuits against state governments brought by the citizens of another state or the citizens of a foreign country. The Supreme Court has also interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits instituted by citizens of the state being sued and lawsuits initiated by the governments of foreign countries. For example, the state of New York could invoke the Eleventh Amendment to protect itself from being sued in federal court by its own residents, residents of another state, residents of a foreign country, or the government of a foreign country (Unknown author)
10th Amendment
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.
10th Amendment - The Local
J.C. Watts
Former Congressman (R.-Okla.); Chairman, The J.C. Watts Companies
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.
The Tenth Amendment sets forth one of our most cherished rights, and for good reasons. When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.
My experience in Congress has convinced me that empowering state and local government leaders to solve their own problems often leads to better policies. These leaders are closer to those affected by their decisions, and more likely to understand the nuances of their community's particular challenges. Solutions that work well in Boston may be completely inappropriate in Portland. It's hard to keep those distinctions in mind on the Hill.
The greatest virtue of the Tenth Amendment is that it embodies the wisdom of checks and balances. We tend to think of checks and balances in the context of our national executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Yet the tension between federal, state, and local governments is just as important. I value the virtues of the Tenth Amendment, but I have reservations about it as well. Equality of opportunity is an ideal that has become a touchstone of American life, but this amendment has often been at odds with it. There is no more significant example of this than slavery and the consequent legacy of segregation. The Tenth Amendment, often invoked under the banner of "states' rights," was one of the leading pretexts for perpetuating slavery. It isn't fair to equate the Tenth Amendment with slavery — Wisconsin, for example, invoked the amendment to protect abolitionists — but it is fair to say it was the fundamental legal barrier to ending it. Decades after slavery ended, the Supreme Court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the most disappointing decisions in our country's history. Louisiana cited the Tenth Amendment in defending its practice of discrimination. To harmonize this with the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, the Court created the oxymoron of "separate but equal." In truth, there was nothing equal about the separation reinforced by this ruling.
Former Congressman (R.-Okla.); Chairman, The J.C. Watts Companies
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.
The Tenth Amendment sets forth one of our most cherished rights, and for good reasons. When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.
My experience in Congress has convinced me that empowering state and local government leaders to solve their own problems often leads to better policies. These leaders are closer to those affected by their decisions, and more likely to understand the nuances of their community's particular challenges. Solutions that work well in Boston may be completely inappropriate in Portland. It's hard to keep those distinctions in mind on the Hill.
The greatest virtue of the Tenth Amendment is that it embodies the wisdom of checks and balances. We tend to think of checks and balances in the context of our national executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Yet the tension between federal, state, and local governments is just as important. I value the virtues of the Tenth Amendment, but I have reservations about it as well. Equality of opportunity is an ideal that has become a touchstone of American life, but this amendment has often been at odds with it. There is no more significant example of this than slavery and the consequent legacy of segregation. The Tenth Amendment, often invoked under the banner of "states' rights," was one of the leading pretexts for perpetuating slavery. It isn't fair to equate the Tenth Amendment with slavery — Wisconsin, for example, invoked the amendment to protect abolitionists — but it is fair to say it was the fundamental legal barrier to ending it. Decades after slavery ended, the Supreme Court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the most disappointing decisions in our country's history. Louisiana cited the Tenth Amendment in defending its practice of discrimination. To harmonize this with the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, the Court created the oxymoron of "separate but equal." In truth, there was nothing equal about the separation reinforced by this ruling.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment. (Information Found At Findlaw.com)
8th Amendment
8th Amendment - Tried As Adults
By MH
September 08, 2009, 11:25AM
On November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments is violated when a juvenile is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a crime other than murder.
The issue before the nation's highest court is framed by two cases originating in Florida.
In one, Joe Harris Sullivan received such a sentence when he was 13 years of age upon his conviction for rape.
In the second case, Terrence Jamar Graham received the same sentence at 17 years of age after he had violated his probation in connection with an armed robbery conviction.
In its 2005 landmark decision in Roper vs. Simmons, the court held that executing juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment in that it was inconsistent with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
To support that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that 30 states had already abolished the death penalty for juveniles while an additional 20 states utilized it very sparingly.
Kennedy also underscored the fact that the death penalty has traditionally been reserved only for those whose extreme culpability makes them "the most deserving of execution."
Juveniles can never fall within this category, Kennedy reasoned, because of three critical differences between them and adults.
Citing language from an earlier case that had invalidated the death penalty for younger juveniles, Kennedy declared that the immaturity of juveniles in general and their susceptibility to misbehavior means that "their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult."
Kennedy next stated that juveniles' vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings entitled them to a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for succumbing to negative influences in their environment.
Finally, he noted that juveniles' ongoing struggle with identity issues militates against concluding that even the most heinous crime committed by them is evidence of an irretrievably depraved character.
Given these diminished capacities of juveniles, neither of the two reasons generally offered for justifying capital punishment - exacting justice and deterrence - are furthered by its imposition on them.
INVALID CRITICISM
While conservatives have criticized the holding in Roper as being driven by reliance on the laws of other countries, this is simply not true.
In fact, although Kennedy noted that the United States was the only country in the world that continued to authorize executing juveniles, he specifically reaffirmed the court's fidelity to the United States Constitution.
International unanimity against the practice only confirmed, he said, the court's conclusion that the death penalty is widely perceived as a disproportionate punishment for juveniles.
The resolution of the two Florida cases will depend on whether the court is ready to extend its reasoning in the Roper decision to those juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in non-capital cases.
Numerous influential organizations, including the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have filed amicus briefs asking the court to do precisely that.
A 2005 study by Human Rights Watch found that 2,225 juveniles were serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole. Last month, the organization asserted that the actual number now exceeds that.
Though sequestered deep inside adult prisons, they constitute the most visible, nauseating proof of the barbaric manner in which the United States continues to treat accused children.
As has been so often the case with this ideologically divided Supreme Court, its ruling in the two Florida cases is going to depend on the vote of Justice Kennedy, the lone moderate on the bench.
On the plus side is Kennedy's robust reliance on the psychological differences between juveniles and adults in voting to strike down the death penalty for juveniles in the Roper case.
These very differences, even more persuasively reaffirmed in the ensuing four years, suggest that he will be sympathetic to the two young petitioners in the Florida cases.
Kennedy might even be persuaded to opine that life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional for all juveniles, even those convicted of murder.
On the other hand, Kennedy previously voted in favor of the death penalty for older juveniles in a 1989 decision before changing his mind six years later in the Roper case.
So he may not be ready to extend the Roper rationale to instances of juveniles serving sentences of life without parole.
Given Kennedy's evolution on juvenile justice, it's also conceivable that he might vote to outlaw these sentences for younger teen-agers, but uphold them for older ones.
In such a scenario, Sullivan would win while Graham would lose.
Sadly, this country is light years away from recognizing that no child should ever be tried or imprisoned as an adult under any circumstances.
Hence, juvenile rights advocates can only hope that the Supreme Court uses the Florida cases to introduce another sliver of sanity into a legal field ruthlessly plundered by callous legislators, politically ambitious, heartless prosecutors and a continuingly apathetic public.
September 08, 2009, 11:25AM
On November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments is violated when a juvenile is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a crime other than murder.
The issue before the nation's highest court is framed by two cases originating in Florida.
In one, Joe Harris Sullivan received such a sentence when he was 13 years of age upon his conviction for rape.
In the second case, Terrence Jamar Graham received the same sentence at 17 years of age after he had violated his probation in connection with an armed robbery conviction.
In its 2005 landmark decision in Roper vs. Simmons, the court held that executing juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment in that it was inconsistent with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
To support that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that 30 states had already abolished the death penalty for juveniles while an additional 20 states utilized it very sparingly.
Kennedy also underscored the fact that the death penalty has traditionally been reserved only for those whose extreme culpability makes them "the most deserving of execution."
Juveniles can never fall within this category, Kennedy reasoned, because of three critical differences between them and adults.
Citing language from an earlier case that had invalidated the death penalty for younger juveniles, Kennedy declared that the immaturity of juveniles in general and their susceptibility to misbehavior means that "their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult."
Kennedy next stated that juveniles' vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings entitled them to a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for succumbing to negative influences in their environment.
Finally, he noted that juveniles' ongoing struggle with identity issues militates against concluding that even the most heinous crime committed by them is evidence of an irretrievably depraved character.
Given these diminished capacities of juveniles, neither of the two reasons generally offered for justifying capital punishment - exacting justice and deterrence - are furthered by its imposition on them.
INVALID CRITICISM
While conservatives have criticized the holding in Roper as being driven by reliance on the laws of other countries, this is simply not true.
In fact, although Kennedy noted that the United States was the only country in the world that continued to authorize executing juveniles, he specifically reaffirmed the court's fidelity to the United States Constitution.
International unanimity against the practice only confirmed, he said, the court's conclusion that the death penalty is widely perceived as a disproportionate punishment for juveniles.
The resolution of the two Florida cases will depend on whether the court is ready to extend its reasoning in the Roper decision to those juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in non-capital cases.
Numerous influential organizations, including the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have filed amicus briefs asking the court to do precisely that.
A 2005 study by Human Rights Watch found that 2,225 juveniles were serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole. Last month, the organization asserted that the actual number now exceeds that.
Though sequestered deep inside adult prisons, they constitute the most visible, nauseating proof of the barbaric manner in which the United States continues to treat accused children.
As has been so often the case with this ideologically divided Supreme Court, its ruling in the two Florida cases is going to depend on the vote of Justice Kennedy, the lone moderate on the bench.
On the plus side is Kennedy's robust reliance on the psychological differences between juveniles and adults in voting to strike down the death penalty for juveniles in the Roper case.
These very differences, even more persuasively reaffirmed in the ensuing four years, suggest that he will be sympathetic to the two young petitioners in the Florida cases.
Kennedy might even be persuaded to opine that life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional for all juveniles, even those convicted of murder.
On the other hand, Kennedy previously voted in favor of the death penalty for older juveniles in a 1989 decision before changing his mind six years later in the Roper case.
So he may not be ready to extend the Roper rationale to instances of juveniles serving sentences of life without parole.
Given Kennedy's evolution on juvenile justice, it's also conceivable that he might vote to outlaw these sentences for younger teen-agers, but uphold them for older ones.
In such a scenario, Sullivan would win while Graham would lose.
Sadly, this country is light years away from recognizing that no child should ever be tried or imprisoned as an adult under any circumstances.
Hence, juvenile rights advocates can only hope that the Supreme Court uses the Florida cases to introduce another sliver of sanity into a legal field ruthlessly plundered by callous legislators, politically ambitious, heartless prosecutors and a continuingly apathetic public.
7th Amendment
7th Amendment - Copyright
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial on statutory damages due under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Here, Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., sued the owner of several television stations for copyright infringement when he continued to broadcast Columbia's programs after his licenses had been terminated for nonpayment. The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability, and plaintiff exercised its option under the Copyright Act's 504(c) to choose statutory damages instead of actual damages. The trial court denied defendant's jury trial request and awarded plaintiff statutory damages. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that neither the Copyright Act nor the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on statutory damages. (informaton found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_199806/ai_n8788232/)
6th Amendment
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.
6th Amendment - Child witness
The Nevada Supreme Court said a defendant has a 6th Amendment right to confront an accuser even if the witness is a minor.
Prosecutors presented the child's statements through surrogates' testimony of a 3-year-old child to protect her from trauma and intimidation.
But the high court said the U.S. Supreme Court's Crawford decision in 2004 expanded the 6th Amendment to permit the defendant to confront any and all witnesses for the prosecution, regardless of their age.
Prosecutors presented the child's statements through surrogates' testimony of a 3-year-old child to protect her from trauma and intimidation.
But the high court said the U.S. Supreme Court's Crawford decision in 2004 expanded the 6th Amendment to permit the defendant to confront any and all witnesses for the prosecution, regardless of their age.
6th Amendment - Speedy Trial
A delay of at least one year in bringing a defendant to trial following arrest will trigger a presumption that the Sixth Amendment has been violated, with the level of judicial scrutiny increasing in direct proportion to the length of delay (United States v. Gutierrez, 891 F. Supp. 97 [E.D.N.Y. 1995]). The government may overcome this presumption by offering a "plausible reason" for the delay (United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144 [4th Cir. 1995]). Courts generally will condone longer delays when the prosecution has requested additional time to prepare for a complex or difficult case. When prosecutors have offered only implausible reasons for delay, courts traditionally have dismissed the indictment, overturned the conviction, or vacated the sentence, depending on the remedy requested by the defendant. (Information from "http://law.jrank.org/pages/10299/Sixth-Amendment-Speedy-Trial.html")
5th Amendment
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.
5th Amendment- Discussion
This amendment describes or rights and course of action against the judicial and the legislative enforcement. It serves the strong for what is known as the Miranda rights. Specifically the "right to remain silent" which is drawn directly from the passage, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The 5th amendment also serves to strengthen the 4th amendment making clear that "[no person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Mostly this Amendment serves to define actions within and around courts, such as the ability to not testify against oneself in a court of law and not being tried twice for the same offense (also known as double jeopardy). As all of the first ten Amendments do the 5th describes the basic "inalienable" rights of the citizens of the United States.
5th Amendment - Miranda rights
Miranda v. Arizona
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda v. Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was overthrown. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to excercise his right to remain silent, and was released.
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda v. Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was overthrown. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to excercise his right to remain silent, and was released.
4th Amendment
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.
4th Amendment-Discussion
Coupled with the 5th amendment this amendment gives us our basic protections from the enforcers of law. This paragraph should not be taken lightly as it gives as a buffer again from that syndrome described in the 2nd amendment. It gives us a measure of safety and security in the privacy of our own homes.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
3rd Amendment
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.
3rd Amendment-Discussion
This Amendment is pretty straight forward and unfortunately I could not find a video or article to more richly explain it so all you get is me this time. This amendments sole purpose is to establish the right of the civilian over the soldier. So that a civilian does not get forced into a position that is possibly harmful to them or their property.
3rd Amendment - Privacy
The Third Amendment and the War on Terror
posted by Gerard Magliocca
I’ve long wondered — mostly in jest — whether the Third Amendment says anything meaningful for modern constitutional analysis. Griswold v. Connecticut cited the Amendment as support for the “right to privacy,” but that’s the only time it’s really been used. But here’s an thought experiment (partly fun, partly serious).
Here’s the text of the amendment:
“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.”
Most people overlook the fact that this means Congress has the power to quarter soldiers in your house during a war (it just needs to pass a law to do so). If the Third Amendment is construed as expressing a privacy principle, then this suggests that Congress has greater latitude to invade our privacy during a war. Of course, this begs the question of what “war” means. Does that mean there must be a declaration of war? Or is it just “not peace,” given that peace is stated as a condition in the preceding clause? If Congress decides that we need to put soldiers in private homes to fight the war on terrorism, would that be constitutional?
Moreover, one could say that the Third Amendment offers some useful guidance about issues such as domestic surveillance without a warrant. In one sense, it suggests a textual basis for thinking that our reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished in wartime (at least with respect to federal action). On the other hand, it also suggests that Congress must concur in any invasion of our privacy — the President cannot unilaterally quarter soldiers in your house under the Commander-in-Chief Clause. (References to “law” in the Constitution, I think, always refer to statutes.)
You may think that this is just a professorial ego trip, but John Bingham (the primary drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment) actually made a Third Amendment analogy to defend the legality of the use of military commissions to try Lincoln’s assassins. (I just read this the other day.) Basically, he said that the Third Amendment supported the proposition that the federal government could take actions in war that it could not take in normal times and pointed to the suspension of habeas corpus as evidence that Congress had authorized the use of military commissions instead of civilian courts for trials of those connecProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
d with the rebellion.
UPDATE: I see that there is a recent note by Josh Dugan, “When is a Search not a Search? When It’s a Quarter: The Third Amendment, Originalism, and NSA Wiretapping,” 97 Geo. L. Rev. 555 (2009) that analyzes this issue in a similar way. I’m printing it out now.
posted by Gerard Magliocca
I’ve long wondered — mostly in jest — whether the Third Amendment says anything meaningful for modern constitutional analysis. Griswold v. Connecticut cited the Amendment as support for the “right to privacy,” but that’s the only time it’s really been used. But here’s an thought experiment (partly fun, partly serious).
Here’s the text of the amendment:
“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.”
Most people overlook the fact that this means Congress has the power to quarter soldiers in your house during a war (it just needs to pass a law to do so). If the Third Amendment is construed as expressing a privacy principle, then this suggests that Congress has greater latitude to invade our privacy during a war. Of course, this begs the question of what “war” means. Does that mean there must be a declaration of war? Or is it just “not peace,” given that peace is stated as a condition in the preceding clause? If Congress decides that we need to put soldiers in private homes to fight the war on terrorism, would that be constitutional?
Moreover, one could say that the Third Amendment offers some useful guidance about issues such as domestic surveillance without a warrant. In one sense, it suggests a textual basis for thinking that our reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished in wartime (at least with respect to federal action). On the other hand, it also suggests that Congress must concur in any invasion of our privacy — the President cannot unilaterally quarter soldiers in your house under the Commander-in-Chief Clause. (References to “law” in the Constitution, I think, always refer to statutes.)
You may think that this is just a professorial ego trip, but John Bingham (the primary drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment) actually made a Third Amendment analogy to defend the legality of the use of military commissions to try Lincoln’s assassins. (I just read this the other day.) Basically, he said that the Third Amendment supported the proposition that the federal government could take actions in war that it could not take in normal times and pointed to the suspension of habeas corpus as evidence that Congress had authorized the use of military commissions instead of civilian courts for trials of those connecProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
d with the rebellion.
UPDATE: I see that there is a recent note by Josh Dugan, “When is a Search not a Search? When It’s a Quarter: The Third Amendment, Originalism, and NSA Wiretapping,” 97 Geo. L. Rev. 555 (2009) that analyzes this issue in a similar way. I’m printing it out now.
2nd Amendment
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.
2nd Amendment-Discussion
Safety or Freedom, throughout years of our relatively young nation this has been the big choice especially in times of war. Do you want to be safe from the Japs or would you rather Japanese immigrants walk free? Do you want to be safe from the Dirty Reds or do you want the ability to speak openly about your beliefs? In almost every scenario they use some intimidating figure to scare us into wanting to give up a little more. In WWII they imprisoned Japanese Americans several generations removed from setting foot on Japan into prison camps. In the cold war days when the soviet union was a threat to the U.S a special agency hunted down suspected "Red sympathizers" and black-balled them and/or chased them from the country. I bring this up because these are obvious now as things that shouldn't have happened. Rights we shouldn't have given up for even a moment. Losing the ability to freely purchase firearms could very well be the next thing the people regret. There going through all the regular steps: Number 1 paint a intimidating villain e.g robbers, school-shootings, gang violence. Number 2 give a solution that takes away freedoms and make it an either or choice so that you seem heartless to choose the freedom e.g Ban guns because those evil devices are what are causing all this pain. In a perfect world you take away guns everyone except the government has them so crime is practically gone. However we do not yet live in a perfect world and even if crime was gone we would have an even worse villain, an Unchallenged Governing Force. There is a syndrome called ???????? that says that when 2 or more people from identical origins arrive in a position in which one group is in seemingly absolute power (e.g Prison guards) and a seemingly powerless group (e.g Prisoners) There becomes a definite urge for the first group to abuse that power in the expense of the other. Couple that with the feeling of anonymity and the urge becomes almost manic. To finish I'm not saying that I think the government will turn and we will need guns to defend ourselves. I'm saying we need guns to remind the government that we are not powerless so that we don't have to defend ourselves like our forefathers. Even though it seems heartless I will tolerate the school shootings, gang violence, and all the robberies at gunpoint for that reason because if we ban the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms it could very well be the first nail in the coffin of our beloved country.
1st Amendment
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.
1st Amendment-Discussion
Arguably the most important amendment of them all. Not to say that the others aren't important just that this small paragraph states the most fundamental of American rights. It lets us, without fear of government (most the time), to say, write, believe, and tell those beliefs to others. So without this tiny addition to the Constitution we would not have near as many rights and freedoms as we do today. So I guess it might have been worth the ink and space.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The U.S. Constitution
This blog goal is to further knowledge and invigorate discussions about the Constitution. It will Include the actual amendments followed by a brief opinionated section. I will attempt to use other articles and videos to support those opinions and my argument. So read on and comment.
End,
Me
End,
Me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
