Uncategorized

Jared Davis – The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Video

Written Component

The Ninth Amendment, written and framed by James Madison, is one of the most debated and ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. It states that certain rights in the Constitution do not mean that other rights do not exist. The main point of conflict revolves around identifying these additional rights. One shared interpretation is that these rights refer to the natural rights inherent from birth, as the Constitution only specifies some rights in great detail. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the amendment was crafted. During the debates between antifederalists and federalists on including a bill of rights, James Madison argued that listing specific rights would leave the government to argue that only the enumerated rights are protected. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment seeks to balance and protect both enumerated and retained rights, subject to interpretation. While the amendment has not been frequently used in cases, it has found use in both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In these cases, the court used the ninth to recognize privacy rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but considered pre-existing rights deserving protection. These examples help reinforce the amendment’s significance in countering the criticism of vague language, although the lack of explicit mention of these rights leaves room for further interpretation. The Ninth Amendment remains the most complex amendment within the Constitution, prompting us to question what new rights today may exist that should have been included in the original document.

 

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is historically and interpretively significant. It addresses concerns over individual rights, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Its inclusion aimed to prevent an excessive concentration of power in the federal government and respond to the demands of the states and their citizens. Commonly understood, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states’ rights and authority, ensuring a balanced power distribution between the federal government and the states. However, interpretations have diverged over time. Some argue it grants states broad powers to resist federal encroachment, while others believe it has limitations and does not grant absolute state sovereignty. The Supreme Court case of New York v. United States (1992) illustrates the debate over the Tenth Amendment. The ruling favored New York, reaffirming state sovereignty and reviving the amendment’s significance. It emphasized the amendment’s role in maintaining a balanced power distribution and protecting states from excessive federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment connects to federalism, balancing individual rights, government authority, and shared power. Its preservation of state sovereignty and protection of rights make it significant. The interpretation that grants states broad powers is more persuasive. It aligns with federalism and the amendment’s intent, preserving state autonomy and authority. Given its historical context and ongoing relevance, I would not advocate amending the Tenth Amendment. It safeguards state sovereignty and individual rights, and altering it could disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states, undermining the principles of federalism.

The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment to the Constitution grants citizens of the United States of America the right to bear arms. The reason behind the passing of the second amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to maintain a standing army. Many U.S citizens feared that if there were a standing army, the government would use soldiers to oppress citizens. This fear was generated because of the British troops occupying several parts of America at the time. The Quartering Act obliges U.S citizens to allow wandering troops to remain on their properties, causing unnecessary complications in the lives of many U.S colonists. These troops were viewed as a burden and citizens feared that members of a standing U.S army would abuse their liberties just as so. In order to prevent soldiers from causing harm to U.S citizens, the Framers decided that the government should only be allowed to raise full-time, paid army troops when needed to fight foreign opposition. For other needs such as protection from invasions, the government would rely on a citizen led militia. This militia would be made up of men supplying their own weapons in order to protect the nation. 

The original purpose of the second amendment was to allow citizens to bear their own weapons when serving in the military forces in the United States. However, the most common interpretation is that the amendment grants all citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment can be easily misunderstood because of lack of clarity. Legal scholars often argue that, because of the lack of clarity, the amendment is able to be interpreted in multiple ways. If I were to explain the second amendment to someone in conversation, I would explain that it grants all U.S citizens the right to bear arms. While I do not believe that this was the original purpose of the amendment, I do believe that this is how it reads. If I were to offer a slight change in the second amendment, I would suggest more specific wording in order to directly relay the purpose. However, because of recent events and increase in gun violence, I do not believe that average citizens should be offered the right to bear arms at all, and I would limit the amendment to those serving in governmental organizations such as the military or the police force.   

 

Eli Ross-Ninth & Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, ratified in the Bill of Rights, were designed to ensure individual states and citizens were granted the correct balance of rights desired by Congress at the time. For the representatives at the constitutional convention, the balance of power was of utmost importance. So, the Ninth Amendment makes clear that individuals have fundamental rights in addition to ones in the Constitution.

These fundamental rights include critical things like the right to travel, vote, and the right to keep matters private. One example of context as to why the Ninth Amendment was drafted is that when the Constitution was being written, Virginia representative and future president James Madison insisted this Amendment was crucial, as it clarified rights not included in the Constitution or Bill of Rights were still important. He believed if this was not mentioned it would suggest rights in the Constitution were “superior” to “non-enumerated” rights and this would violate individual liberty, a key American ideal. 

The Supreme Court justices have debated the specific meaning of the Ninth Amendment and the word “enumeration” on occasion, but generally agree that this Amendment calls for equal protection and equal value of non-enumerated and Constitutionally-enumerated rights for individuals.  The Tenth Amendment, also designed as a power-balancing law, says that rights not specifically given to the federal government or prohibited to the states, were reserved for the states. For example, the state of Kansas has the right to control its own education system but cannot wage war against a foreign country due to laws put in place protected by the Tenth Amendment.

This law was put in place because the drafters believed too much federal power would be similar to the old English monarchy which the colonists were rebelling against, but also recognized if the states had too much power they would be almost like foreign sovereign nations and potentially could split apart. The Amendment has been debated even at the time of its ratification.

For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Amendment wasn’t powerful enough to be featured in the Bill of Rights whereas James Madison believed it was of equal value to the other amendments and important to include since it would avoid Congress manipulating its powers, which would have created a too-strong federal government. More recently, court cases have focused on the Tenth Amendment’s conflict with the Elastic Clause (Article 1, Section 8), which gives Congress power to pass any law related to fulfilling their Federal duties. One important case where Amendment 10 was considered was Printz v. United States (1997), where two sheriffs challenged a bill that required background checks for prospective handgun owners.

The Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of Sheriff Printz, as the justices believed abolishing mandatory federal background checks would reaffirm the Amendment’s idea that state legislatures are not subject to Congressional direction.

Zohar Lindemann- The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Once the American colonists won the revolutionary war and gained their independence, the nation struggled to find a balance between the practical demands of running a large country and the ideals of freedom and individualism that they had so recently fought for. Many of the Constitution’s framers were afraid of creating yet another absolutist rule, feeling that offering too much power to a central government would leave the wants and needs of the common people forgotten. Other framers felt that the lack of a strong central government would result in political chaos. Many elements of the Constitution, which is largely considered a federalist document, are written with precaution to the fear that a central government would have the ability to completely overrule other political powers. For this reason, the framers deemed unnecessary the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, although numerous state constitutions had them at the time. To those drafting the Constitution, simply entertaining the idea that the federal government would have the ability to overrule the natural rights of the people was considered dangerous. The 10th Amendment ensures that there are thorough limitations on the federal government’s power and that the rights of the State and of the individual are properly protected, with federal power extending only as far as the Constitution dictates it is able to. 

After the 1933 installment of the New Deal, a federal effort to stabilize the economy, the 10th Amendment became somewhat obsolete. However, in 1992, it regained its relevance as a consequence of the “New Federalism” movement. Rober Schapiro asserts that for the benefit of the U.S. “politically, socially, and morally,” the 10th amendment should have remained neglected. In various instances, but most prominently throughout the Civil Rights Movement, the amendment has given states the ability to enforce racial inequality laws that contradict directly the rights outlined in other sections of the Constitution. Schapiro argues that in today’s world, federal and state powers are so intertwined that the amendment’s only purpose is to provide legal loopholes for states whose intentions dispute the core values outlined in the Constitution, providing a necessary “backstop” for everything not mentioned. 

The debate around the interpretation of this text is illustrated in the Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) case. Within the case, SAMTA claims that being an institution controlled by a state government, they are exempt from federal labor controls such as minimum wage and overtime requirements. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Garica, arguing that the “traditional” function of a state government was subjective and that the structure of the federal system itself provided sovereign protection enough. Under the commerce clause, SAMTA was deemed subject to congressional legislation. This case serves as a demonstration of the ongoing debate over the role of a central government within the U.S.

Both the French and American revolutions can be considered as a test of the function that Enlightenment values serve within practical governments. With the French government often considered a failure, and the clear difficulties that the 10th amendment illustrates between federal and state power, the 10th amendment raises questions about the ability of radical Enlightenment ideas, such as Montesquieu’s strong belief in the separation of powers, to function smoothly.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights

Video

Written Component

The motivation for the Third Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights came from the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act was a law that allowed British soldiers to be sheltered in the private homes of colonists.(1) The amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to house soldiers in the private residences of citizens of the United States without the owners’ express permission in times of peace, but during war the process of quartering soldiers must be prescribed for by law. Some scholars interpret the Third Amendment as applying to increasingly militarized police forces in addition to the military. However, this understanding of the amendment was defeated in the 2015 case Mitchell v. City of Henderson where the plaintiffs were forced out of their home by police in preparation for a nearby operation. Mitchell sued the city on the grounds that his Third Amendment rights had been violated, but a Federal Court decided that the police are not soldiers so the amendment did not apply.(2) The Third Amendment, like checks and balances on power in other parts of the constitution, is a roadblock to government overreach. The policing interpretation of the Third amendment is persuasive to me because it controls the interactions between citizens and the police. In my opinion the amendment should be altered to protect against quartering from both military and law enforcement personnel. 

General warrants in Britain and writs of association in the colonies were some of the major pressures that led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. General warrants and writs of association allowed law enforcement to search a person’s property without any suspicion of a crime. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that a warrant only be issued with a reasonable level of suspicion for a crime, and with specific objectives. What constitutes probable cause or a search in the Fourth Amendment has been debated by many legal scholars. A Supreme Court decision in 1985 over the case Dow Chemical Company vs. The United States partially answered the question of what constitutes a search. Dow Chemicals sued the US on the basis that its Fourth amendment rights had been violated after the EPA observed their factory grounds without a warrant. The Court decided in the favor of the United States, because the factory’s grounds were an open area and the Fourth amendment only deals with “the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur.” The Fourth amendment is another amendment like the Third that deals with the specter of an authoritarian government overpowering the people. I agree with the interpretation that mass government surveillance is unconstitutional because it searches the personal data of people unsuspected of a crime. I also agree with the interpretation that security checks are constitutional, because people are making a decision to agree to the security check when they enter the area. I would not advocate any changes to the Fourth amendment because it protects the people from unreasonable law enforcement activity.

 

1 – American Battlefield Trust, “The Quartering Act,” American Battlefield Trust, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/quartering-act#:~:text=The%20last%20act%20passed%20was,quarter%20or%20house%20British%20soldiers.

2 – Leonard Niehoff, “What Is the Third Amendment, and Will the Supreme Court Ever Examine It Again?,” interview by Andrew Cohen, Brennan Center for Justice, last modified August 3, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-third-amendment-and-will-supreme-court-ever-examine-it-again#:~:text=Into%20this%20category%20goes%20the,up%20to%20the%20Revolutionary%20War.

 

Maddy Kim’s Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

According to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in Amendment I: the federal government will not have a state religion, or support or restrict any religion or religious practice. In the original articles, Article 6, Section 3 provides the only reference to religion and prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

 

The Establishment Clause sought to address the religious tyranny of the British. During England’s reign over the colonies, the Church of England legally required southern colonists to pay religious taxes and often attend church services. Some scholars interpret the clause as a check on religious tyranny. Additionally, due to most of the framers being Deists, the meaning of the clause based on the intentions of the framers indicates that the Establishment Clause aims to avoid persecution. Other scholars assert that the clause is a co-guarantor of religious freedom, designed to reduce the role of religion in American life, and promote the free practice of a variety of religions. These interpretations are two of a variety that have been used in some of the Supreme Court’s best-known Establishment Clause based decisions. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court deemed it unconstitutional for public school children to be led in prayer or read from the bible as the government had no business drafting any formal prayers for any part of its population. 

 

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress will not prohibit the free exercise of a religion. The clause was responding to the fact that much of the population of colonial America consisted of immigrants and oppressed peoples who sought to escape religious persecution and regarded the protection of religious exercise an inalienable right. The freedom to worship in accordance with an individual’s belief was widely supported by many of the American population. The Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted as a claim that religious liberty is equal liberty, and also that free exercise provides necessary protection for diversity and freedom. As explained by Frederik Gediks, a professor of law, the guarantee of free religious exercise was to prevent government discrimination or abuse on the basis of religion. Others maintain that this clause protects human diversity. Though the clause may seem very short and simple, there have been a variety of supreme court cases involving the Free Speech Clause that contradict each other. When discussing religious exemptions including Amish and Jewish practices, the Supreme Court has changed its perspective multiple times (as explained in my video!).

Peytin Metz – The Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

The United States Constitution was highly informed by the experiences they had under British rule, both negative and positive. The Framers of the Constitution drew inspiration from the British Impeachment tradition, which was a system put in place in order to hold high-ranking officials accountable for any serious offenses that had been committed. They wanted to ensure that the U.S. President would not be able to abuse their power, as they observed in the British monarchy. To prevent an unbalanced concentration of power in the Executive branch, they created an intricate system of checks and balances, including the impeachment process. Historically, there have been three Presidential impeachments. Andrew Johnson in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald J. Trump in 2019 and 2021. The process of Impeachment begins with an impeachment inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives. It is then put to trial in the Senate, where a vote is conducted to determine if the individual is to be convicted or acquitted.

The Impeachment Clause is located in Article II of the Constitution, which lists the enumerated powers of the Executive branch. This clause states, that in a trial of impeachment, the President may risk being removed from office if convicted of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This clause served as another check against the President, giving Congress and the House of Representatives the power to remove the President and Vice President from office if necessary. The interpretation of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is widely debated, because it only appears in the context of the Impeachment Clause. It means that the President or Vice President can only be impeached on the basis of violating the rules of public office, and impeachment cannot be inflicted as a punishment for basic incompetency. This makes the distinction between lack of ability and impeachment-worthy actions challenging to find. 

Legal scholars often debate the vagueness of this phrase, wanting it to either be read more narrowly or broadly. Scholars argue that if impeachable offenses were more narrowly read, it would leave the government unprepared for any unanticipated misdemeanors. If the offenses were read too broadly, the clause would risk forming legislative partisanship that would obstruct the independence of other government officials. Many people refer to the words of Chief Justice John Marshall to defend the ambiguity of the Impeachment clause. He stated that the “constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” He believed that the Constitution cannot and should not be expected to explicitly list the proper grounds for impeachment. It should be malleable and open to interpretation, to ensure that an unfit member of the Executive Branch can be punished accordingly. Many fear that narrowly defining the grounds of impeachment would allow the person who risks such punishment to avoid it on a specific technicality of the phrase.

Carly Schreiber – Sixth & Seventh Amendment

Video

Written Component

The United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment declares that “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.” This amendment developed as a result of the British colonists’ experiences, who repeatedly subjected them to arbitrary arrests and unfair trials. The founding fathers intended to create safeguards to defend the rights of people facing criminal charges and guarantee fair and just trials. 

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to 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.” This amendment’s origins can be found in English common law traditions, where jury trials were crucial for settling civil disputes. 

In federal criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public, and impartial jury trial that takes place in the state and district where the alleged crime was committed. The defendants are entitled to legal representation, have to be made aware of the allegations against them, and have the right to answer questions and present their own witnesses. This ensures that defendants are given the chance to present their case and are judged by a fair and impartial jury of their peers, and are not subject to arbitrary or extended detention. 

If the dispute is worth more than twenty dollars, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. It also forbids the re-examination of jury-decided facts unless specifically permitted by law. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining the traditional role of juries in resolving civil disputes and forbids courts from overturning jury verdicts unless they do so in alignment with the common law’s rules. 

Legal scholars and court rulings have disagreed in the past on how to interpret these clauses. The Sixth Amendment has sparked debates about what constitutes a “speedy” trial and what requirements should be used to assess whether the right of a defendant to a single trial has been violated. The extent of the jury trial guarantee provided by the Seventh Amendment and its relevance to modern civil litigation has also been questioned. In Barker v. Wingo (1972), the Supreme Court established a four-factor balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. This case serves as an example of how the Sixth Amendment is applied in court. This case exemplifies the ongoing debate about the specific requirements and circumstances defining a “speedy” trial.

 

Bibliography

 

“Barker v. Wingo.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-5255.

 

“Gideon v. Wainwright.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155.

 

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.

 

“Right to Speedy Trial by Jury, Witnesses, Counsel.” National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-vi.

 

“Sixth Amendment Rights in Criminal Prosecutions.” Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6.

Elsa Dees- Article II: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 delineates the impeachment terms for the president, vice president and other civil officers of the United States. This impeachment clause stems from both English Parliamentary practice and American Colonial Law. In Britain, Parliament had the ability to challenge the power of the crown, ministers, and the king’s favorites due to political offenses. The colonies also had their own impeachment procedures, which held officials accountable for political crimes. In both cases, impeachment proceedings were part of a process that separated powers and allowed the legislative branch to check the executive, counteracting tyranny. (1)

The common interpretation of Article II, Section 4 is that all federal officials can be tried, impeached, and removed from office for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This provision can be interpreted in divergent ways because of the vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which provides latitude for the House to determine what offenses can be considered grounds for impeachment. While this clause does not allow the House to impeach an official for incompetence, it provides the House with great flexibility to impeach a federal official for a crime or abuse of power.

The impeachment process first begins when the House conducts an impeachment inquiry. Thereafter, the House must pass, by simple majority, the articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegations against the official. If the House passes the articles, the federal official is considered impeached. The Senate then conducts the trial of the impeached official. If supported by two-thirds of the Senate, the official is convicted and removed from office. (2)

Over the course of U.S. history, a very small number of government officials have been impeached and a much smaller number have been convicted and removed from office. Most officials under scrutiny have decided to voluntarily resign from their positions or have been removed by their superiors. Three presidents – Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump – have been impeached by the House, with Trump twice, but none have been convicted by the Senate. In late 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury during an investigation about pre-presidency financial deals and obstruction of justice. During the Senate trial, numerous senators raised questions about whether President Clinton’s actions were “high crimes and misdemeanors.” President Clinton was ultimately not convicted when the Senate did not reach the required two-thirds supermajority. (3)

Impeachment connects to revolutionary ideas and questions of checks and balances, stopping tyranny and injustice, and making sure that the power resides with the people, or in this case, the House of Representatives. While there is debate about the vague definition of the impeachable offenses, I would not amend this clause because a narrow and specific definition would be easier to avoid and would not provide for changes in laws and offenses. This vague provision leaves more room for the House and the Senate to make decisions on what is morally correct and the appropriate punishments.

  1. “ArtII.S4.4.2 Historical Background on Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/.

  2. “About Impeachment,” United States Senate, https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm.

  3.  “ArtII.S4.4.8 President Bill Clinton and Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-8/ALDE_00000696/.

Isabella Graham Torres — The Sixth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The common interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is that it purports that everyone has the right to a fair trial. This trial must be speedy, public, and contain a jury consisting of unbiased people from the state where the alleged crime was committed, and witnesses for and against the defendant. Lastly, the amendment also states that the accused has the right to a lawyer for said trial. Before the Sixth Amendment, our court system was very disorganized.

Neither side of a trial had a lawyer, trials were glorified, minute-to-hour-long shouting matches, and the jury consisted of 12 men who knew the defendant and/or the victim and were therefore very biased. The incentive to include the Sixth Amendment in our constitution was to help organize the legal system and make criminal trials fairer for defendants. Originally, the main contention with the Sixth Amendment was whether or not the amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases applies to felony defendants in state cases as well as capital ones.

The main Supreme Court ruling dealing with the importance of the Sixth Amendment is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). In this case, Gideon was accused of Breaking and Entering. When he requested a lawyer, he was denied one and sent to jail. He then filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that, under the Sixth Amendment, he was deserving of a lawyer and shouldn’t have gone to jail. At the end of the appeals process, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, stating that almost every aspect of the Sixth Amendment is valid to federal and state prosecutions, meaning that Gideon in fact did deserve a lawyer. I agree with the interpretation supported by the Supreme Court: the Sixth Amendment is meant to be taken at face value and applied to all aspects of our legal system.

In order to truly present ourselves as a fair country with an unbiased legal system, we need to support all of our citizens. If I could change one aspect of the Sixth Amendment, I would advocate for amending the part of the amendment added by the Supreme Court after Gideon x Wainwright, in which it is required that public defenders give adequate representation to their clients. I believe that instead of controlling the effectiveness of public defenders, which is already a near impossible task, the legislation should instead provide better funding for public defenders. More than 80% of defendants charged with felonies are indigent, meaning that more than 80% of defendants in felony cases rely on public defenders. Despite public defenders representing a massive portion of defendants in our country, they are severely underfunded. In 2009 in Florida, the annual caseload of felonies per public defender 2,225 misdemeanors and over 500 felonies.

This disregard for public defender’s time has disadvantaged both them and their clients, seeing as they no longer have the time to fully investigate each case. Also, due to how many cases each public defender has, they get severely backed up, meaning that approximately 500,000 defendants waiting for their trial wait in jail for at least a year before it happens. These conditions are horrific and not sustainable. If the government increases funding for public defenders and places more equitable limits on how many cases public defenders can have, the way the US conducts criminal cases will improve exponentially for defendants and lawyers alike.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Bibliography (for written portion): 

Guardian. “Poor People Rely on Public Defenders Who Are Too Overworked to Defend Them.” The Guardian. Last modified June 17, 2015. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked.

Bibliography (for video): 

Guardian. “Poor People Rely on Public Defenders Who Are Too Overworked to Defend Them.” The Guardian. Last modified June 17, 2015. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked.