Uncategorized

Sorochi Constitution Project – 8th Amendment

Video

Written Component

Sorochi Sunday Ms. Lafuse World History I 2 June 2023 By granting powers not included in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution strengthened the federal government. Federal crimes were established in the Constitution, and Congress had full power to define them and determine the appropriate punishments.

Congress’ authority over federal crimes worried some American leaders. At the time, no part of the Constitution regulated the punishments for federal crimes, leaving the possibility of Congress abusing their power. In response to fears of the federal government issuing oppressive punishments, the 8th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Part of the 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” meaning criminals should not receive inhumane penalties for their crime. 

Debates have risen concerning how the words “cruel” and “unusual” should be interpreted. After defining these terms, the following question is: which standard, 1971, when the Bill of Rights was created, or modern day, should punishments be held to. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believe that any punishment that was permissible in 1791 cannot be considered cruel or unusual. With their interpretation, capital punishment, while now controversial, would be considered Constitutional, since it was used in America during 1791.

Additionally, they believe that a punishment being disproportionate to crime committed does not necessarily mean the punishment is cruel. Conversely, Chief Justice Earl Warren believes interpretation of the clause should evolve over time to fit the changing standards of decency. He argues that a change in interpretation marks progress in society. Legal scholar John F. Stinneford disagrees with both Justices Thomas and Scalia, and Chief Justice Warren. He believes the meaning of cruel and unusual should fit the original public meaning.

According to him, the standard of cruelty the general public held in 1791 should be the standard judges use as they interpret the Constitution. In an attempt to preserve the original meaning, he also argues “unusual” should be interpreted as new or unprecedented, rather than rare. He claims that his interpretation is founded off of research into the original meaning of the 8th Amendment.  I find Chief Justice Warren’s interpretation most persuasive.

The other two interpretations discussed require one to understand the minds of people living the era of the Constitution, whether that be the framers or everyday people. However, both tasks seem very difficult to achieve in reality. Even with detailed research, discovering the exact thought process of the framers as they wrote the 8th amendment, let alone the average American in 1791, is improbable. Further, while historians have a better chance, with the brief and vague language of the 8th amendment, the average expertise of a judge may not be enough to reach a well-founded conclusion of any true original meaning. 

If I could amend this section, I would specify what is meant by “cruel”. To do this, I would list out some of the ways a punishment could be cruel, like so: a punishment that includes intentional torture or elongated killing, or is disproportionate in severity to the seriousness of the crime. I feel the word “cruel” is more important to the clause than “unusual”, as a punishment can be grossly inhumane, but also common.   

Shreya Ranjan- The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Video

Written Component

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

Created by James Madison as part of the First Amendment, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are now crucial parts of the American right to freedom. However, they weren’t always considered this way: America, since its founding, has been predicated on the concept of religious freedom. Indeed, many of the original colonies had been composed of immigrants who had fled from Europe to escape religious persecution, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

The Establishment and Free Practice Clauses were created to ban the implementation of an official national religion (it’s important to note that under the Establishment Clause, states were still allowed to have official religions, and some continued to do so until the 1830s (1)), to prevent congress from unfairly favoring one religion over another, and to guarantee citizens the ability to practice their respective religions.

The founders included these clauses to prevent the tyranny which would inevitably form out of the union of church and state, as well as to guarantee what was considered the “inalienable right” of citizens to free religious practice. Interpretations of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have often been specific, especially within the rulings of the Supreme Court: the juxtaposition of cases such as Kennedy v Bremerton School District and Santa Fe School District v Doe makes these differences clear.

Interestingly enough, both cases involved similar pretenses; Kennedy sued the Bremerton School District for violating his Free Practice Clause rights after the District ordered him to stop praying before football games, whilst the Santa Fe School District was sued for organizing student led prayers over loudspeakers before football games and thus violating the Establishment Clause.

In the case of Kennedy, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, writing that since Kennedy’s prayers were non-mandatory and discreet, they did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the court noted that the District’s order was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Nearly 20 years earlier, the court ruled against the Santa Fe School District, saying that prayers conducted over the loudspeaker were in violation of the Establishment Clause since they were organized and affiliated with the public school and, therefore, the government.

The distinction between government affiliated prayer and private prayer lends an interesting weight to these clauses, as the dilemma of separation between church and state has fascinated society for many years. Paralleling the Establishment Clause was the dechristianization of society during the French Revolution, wherein symbols of religion were removed throughout France. Interestingly enough, these sentiments continue today into modern French society— oftentimes, steps taken to eradicate the symbols of religion in public society have been targeted and Islamophobic (2).

This targeting raises the question of where the line should be drawn to separate government-affiliated and private religious symbolism: in the case of Doe, there were arguments that since the prayer was student-led, it did not violate the First Amendment. However, general consensus does seem to indicate that prayer conducted over a loudspeaker is considered public and, therefore, was in violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

Footnotes:

                      (1) Marc A. Clauson, “Religious freedom since the First Amendment and early state constitutions,” Constituting America, accessed June 1, 2023, https://constitutingamerica.org/religious-freedom-since-first-amendment-early-state-constitutions-guest-essayist-marc- clauson/#:~:text=Massachusetts%20was%20the%20last%20state,well%20as%20the%20national%20government.

                     (2)  Rachel Donadio, “Why Is France so Afraid of God?,” The Atlantic, November 22, 2021, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-god-religion-secularism/620528/.

Jason Joseph – The Commerce Clause and Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

Under the Articles of Confederation, states had the power to handle their commerce largely independently which hindered trade between states and hurt the overall economy. The Commerce Clause allowed Congress to centralize trade between nations, states, and Indian tribes. This increased trade and the movement of goods, bolstering the economy. In 1808, the first year it was authorized by the constitution to do so, Congress banned the importation of slaves because it fell under foreign commerce. This, as well as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), provided a precedent for Congress to overrule state laws that pertained to interstate or foreign commerce. Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) was a case where McClung believed Congress had no power to integrate his restaurant. McClung was forced to integrate because his business fit the definition of interstate commerce and Congress therefore had authority over it. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation created limitations on African Americans who traveled to different states, falling under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to gain more authority over the states to end segregation. The definition of interstate commerce is highly contested with those wanting decreased government oversight pushing for the original definition of navigation and trade, and those wanting increased government oversight arguing for a broader interpretation. By leaving the meaning of interstate commerce broad it assures that as the circumstances in the United States change so too can the economic practices.

The Declare War clause gives Congress the sole power to wage war, commandeer citizens’ ships in times of war, and provide legislation over obtained territory. The framers intended the Declare War clause to serve as a check to the President’s military power. However, the framers also wanted The President to keep enough autonomy in order to respond to sudden attacks against the nation. In 1964, Congress authorized military support to defend the assets and allies the United States had in Southeast Asia. This led to the Vietnam War, an undeclared war,  where The President took actions that vastly expanded on Congress’ authorization, such as having a draft. When President Nixon approved a secret bombing in Cambodia during the war, Congress realized it needed increased power in foreign military conflicts. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, mandates that The President communicate with Congress before using force, and obtain approval from Congress for missions longer than 60 days. This is intended to allow Congress to control the military direction of the nation. On the contrary, this resolution gives The President 60 days of unauthorized action, which prior to the resolution The President did not have. As weapons’ capability for destruction grows, troops travel faster, and information is spread more rapidly, the devastation and lasting impact that can be accomplished in 60 days of conflict is increasing. Can military action that profoundly affects the entire United States and the well-being of other nations be entrusted to a single individual?

 

Bibliography

Barnett, Randy E. “Why Congress and the Courts Should Obey the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Barnett, Randy E., and Andrew Koppelman. “The Commerce Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752.

 

Denniston, Lyle. “Was the Vietnam War Unconstitutional?” National Constitution Center. Last modified September 20, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/was-the-vietnam-war-unconstitutional.

 

Oyez. “Gibbons v. Ogden.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1.

 

———. “Katzenbach v. McClung.” Oyez. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/543.

 

Ramsay, Michael D., and Stephen I. Vladeck. “Declare War Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. “War Powers Resolution of 1973.” Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. Last modified July 27, 2021. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973#:~:text=The%20War%20Powers%20Resolution%20of,the%20executive%20branch’s%20power%20when.

 

Vladeck, Stephen I. “Congress’s Statutory Abdication of Its Declare War Power.” National Constitution Center. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753.

 

The VI & VII Amendments

Video

Written Component

The 6th and 7th Amendments are criminal amendments alongside the 5th and 14th Amendments. There were two main reasons why the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment were created. Firstly, these amendments responded to and strengthened previous British criminal prosecutions where only magistrates and judges would collect evidence and ask questions. Second, it was influenced by the enforcement of the sugar acts, where the British  sent colonials to Vice-Admiralty courts outside the colonies, without juries, and no representation. The Sixth responds to these concerns, creating a court framework so that criminal prosecutions would consist of a jury of peers to eliminate bias and guarantees the accused rights to a speedy, impartial, public trial. Now, the Sixth Amendment is more commonly understood to guarantee the accused rights to an attorney, no matter the cost.

However, this only existed after the Gideon vs. Wainwright court case, where Gideon, denied the right to an attorney after being convicted of a break-in, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and now the right to an attorney is explicitly and widely known to be incorporated within the Sixth Amendment. There are several other occurrences where the Sixth protected the accused’s rights after their right to a speedy trial was violated. For example, Zedner vs. United States is a criminal case where the district court judge convinced JACOB Zedner to waive his right to a speedy trial.

Zedner, four years later, appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that waiving his rights violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. In the end, all judges ruled in his favor. The Sixth, as demonstrated, is an essential part of the Amendments that protect the rights of the accused and creates a fairer and more impartial criminal prosecution system.

The Seventh Amendment states that both parties have the right to a jury on civil cases that exceed twenty dollars. The second clause of the Seventh states a similar case to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy. Civil cases will not be re-examined unless according to the standard law rules. Recently, however, the decision to use civil juries has been declining partly because of many negative downsides, including the fact that people are less willing to pay lawyer fees for a jury, jury trials for civil cases are generally more time-consuming for all parties, and State governments can modify the threshold(money needed)until the use of juries in civil cases are allowed.

Since the Seventh Amendment was created to serve as a means of representation, the original purpose of the Seventh Amendment to represent the American people may seem outdated. However, it still must be understood that both the 6th and 7th Amendments are significant to protect and ensure the rights of the accused. Otherwise, accused people would not have rights and face extreme bias and conviction rates within court systems.

2nd Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment was written because of a mix of fear of a British invasion and basic mistrust of professional soldiers. With this fear the government decided to add an amendment to the constitution to allow for states to have a militia that allowed them to protect against foreign and domestic enemies without the government being able to stop them.

This was of course before the US had a real military though we do still have something similar to the state militias in the national guard. When it comes to interpreting things into something completely different than the original meaning nothing out does the second amendment the original text reads, “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.” Of course the common interpretation is very different and seems to commonly be everyone in America has the right to own and operate guns without restriction. Because of this so many different opinions and meanings have been debated but to simplify them all i’m going to make three sections: red, purple and blue, the red and blue of course pointing to the extremes not everyone’s views.

The red opinion is that everybody should have guns and that gun regulation will not work whatsoever and is an ineffective solution that we should not try to implement. The purple is more of a middle ground opinion basically saying that we should still allow people to own guns but impose strict regulation to purchase and usage like mental illness, age and criminal record.

And finally the blue this opinion is basically that we should ban all guns as allowing for people to own them is inherently dangerous. Of course the debates made by legal scholars are mainly centered around if the Second Amendment had focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard, this can be seen in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

This can of course be connected to the American revolution as the point of the amendment was to allow states to protect themselves. I find the purple opinion the most persuasive as it is a good middle ground that has the highest probability of being agreed upon because though it is not a perfect solution it is one that everyone can agree on. And when it comes to changing the amendment well, I would re-word the entire amendment to be much more specific in the case of gun regulations: specify how they are different for active members of the military and specify the restrictions age and other that are required for owning each separate type of gun.

Kannon Hunter – Fifth Article

Video

Written Component

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the first governing document of the United States. The Articles had proven ineffective in providing a strong central authority and lacked provisions for amending the document. The framers recognized the need for a more flexible and adaptable system that could withstand the test of time. This led to the inclusion of Article 5 in the Constitution, which provides a formal and organized mechanism for amending the Constitution.

The historical forces giving rise to Article 5 can be attributed to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment ideas, the experiences of the American Revolution, the desire to balance federal and state powers, and the need for a flexible system of governance. These factors shaped the framers’ vision for a constitution that could be amended to meet the evolving needs of the nation while preserving its core principles.

Article 5’s primary significance lies in its provision for amending the Constitution. It allows for the adaptation of the Constitution as societal needs and conditions change over time. This ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and avoids becoming rigid or outdated. However, there are divergent interpretations of Article 5, particularly regarding the power of Congress in the amendment process. Some interpretations emphasize Congress’s sole authority to propose amendments, while others argue that a convention of states can independently propose amendments.

While there isn’t a specific Supreme Court decision addressing this debate, the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921) clarified that Congress can set deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments. While some scholars have argued that Article 5 should be changed to allow for an easier path to proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments, the debated interpretation “How We Change The Constitution (Hint: It’s not by amending it)” by David A, Strauss is particularly persuasive because it gives direct examples of how many of the rules and areas covered by the Constitution have changed over time, even though the number of constitutional amendments has been limited and the process to propose and ratify an amendment is strict.

Strauss gives compelling examples of instances where the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, even though the specific text of the document has not. For example, even though the Equal Rights Amendment was never officially ratified, women continued to gain equality through other channels, like legal battles in the courts. Regarding the suggested adaptation of the amendment process, one argument proposes changing the requirement to two-thirds and three-fourths of the popular vote instead of relying on the House of Representatives and State Legislatures. An argument can be made that allowing the people to directly vote on changing the Constitution will lead to a more efficient path to enacting amendments.

However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such a change. The general population may be easily influenced by political propaganda, and the media or may not fully understand the serious implications of more easily proposed and passed constitutional amendments. While the high thresholds for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments impose challenges that have resulted in only 27 constitutional amendments having ever been instituted, they were put in place by the Founding Fathers for good reasons. Altering the process based solely on popular vote may not necessarily represent the long-term will and best interests of the nation.  

Article IV – Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause, Article IV Section IV, explains that the United States requires every state to have a republican form of government, meaning elective government and therefore majority rule. The clause also ensures each state will be federally protected against invasions and domestic unrest or violence. The Guarantee Clause was a response to the country’s recent history. Newly independent from the monarchy, the Constitution framers saw guaranteeing majority rule as crucial to protecting the country from returning to a monarchy or establishing a dictatorship or military rule. In addition, federal protection against invasions was also in mind after the American Revolution. Federal protection against domestic unrest or violence is seen as a direct response to Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787 when Massachusetts farmers led an armed uprising, and Congress was unable to deploy troops from other states to stop them. These recent events likely influenced the drafters of the Constitution to include these protections as a “guarantee.” 

Matters of debate concerning the Guarantee Clause center around the tension between a federal guarantee of majority rule and state autonomy to govern themselves. For instance, in the case, Oregon v. Mitchell in 1970, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government was limited to setting a minimum voting age for federal elections only. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment overturned this case, setting a minimum age of 18 across all elections, state and federal. Similarly, Amendments, XV, XIX, and XXIV declare that state elections may not discriminate by race or sex, or charge poll taxes, respectively. Another debate is related to the disenfranchisement of African Americans during Reconstruction. After the Civil War, African Americans were the majority in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, which did not allow them to vote. This disenfranchisement was a violation of the Guarantee Clause as majority rule was obstructed. While the Guarantee Clause obligates the federal government to step in, Congress does not have authority to police state elections. Similarly, the question of whether the Guarantee Clause should protect against voter suppression is also a matter of state versus federal authority. Voter suppression undermines the fundamental principles of representative democracy by limiting access to the ballot. It can be argued that the Guarantee Clause should include protecting citizens’ rights to vote freely and without discrimination. Dictating how polls are run in state elections, however, could be considered infringing on state autonomy.

In the debate concerning federal protection against voter suppression, I find the argument that guaranteeing a republican form of government for states means guaranteeing protection against voter suppression to be most persuasive. Federally protecting voters is difficult, however, as it can be considered encroaching on state autonomy. Federally standardizing the polling process across states would protect against voter suppression but takes away from states’ autonomy to run their own elections. Aside from this issue, having different state polling processes protects state elections from fraud or external interference as it makes elections harder to systematically hack. The debates surrounding the Guarantee Clause capture the tension in balancing federal and state power. 

 

The 8th Amendment – Jojo

Video

Written Component

The 8th Amendment was created to ensure that the government had restrictions regarding punishing criminals so the punishments would not be out of proportion. The Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In simpler terms, this clause restricts what types of punishments the government could inflict upon criminals, such as asking for unreasonable amounts of bail or fines imposed that are disproportionate to the crime. The 8th Amendment was initially derived from the British Bill of Rights written a century before in 1689. The British Bill of Rights also included the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” which American Politician George Mason got the idea to include in the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776. This Amendment was instituted because the framers felt the need to have a clause limiting the federal courts’ prosecuting power. 

The two scholars, John F. Stinneford and Bryan A. Stevenson debated the meaning of the 8th Amendment in terms of what “cruel and unusual punishment” really means in today’s context and how this Amendment relates to the death penalty. Stinneford’s argument focuses on the views of Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas argue that in terms of the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” the only acceptable punishments would be ones that were acceptable back when this Amendment was ratified in 1791. Those punishments also were not to be barbaric because that would violate the “cruel and unusual” part of the Amendment. Regarding the death penalty, they interpreted the Amendment in a way that did not prohibit it, but for someone to be put on death row, they had to be convicted by a grand jury through due process of law. As for Stevenson’s take on the Amendment, he interpreted that punishments had to be proportionate to the crime committed and up to modern standards of decency. His take on if the death penalty is constitutional is highly conditional because he argued that if the decision to sentence someone to death was influenced by racial, economic, or religious biases, then the death penalty is not constitutional. The conviction must be based entirely on facts and free of bias. 

A Supreme Court case that involved this clause was Atkins V.S Virginia. This case occurred in 2002 and concerned a man named Daryl Renard Atkins, who was tried for abduction, armed robbery, and murder. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to be put to death. However, the Virginia Supreme Court called for a second hearing because they argued that Atkins was mentally disabled and the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment.” As a result, the Supreme Court changed the verdict and took him off death row, creating the standard that executing mentally disabled persons is “cruel and unusual punishment.” The interpretations of this Amendment are varied, but Stevenson’s argument demonstrates how the clause should be interpreted with modern problems and standards to properly sentence offenders. The focal point of debate surrounding this Amendment is the constitutionality of the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, no definitive answer can be given about whether it is constitutional because it greatly depends on the crime committed. Nevertheless, this Amendment is crucial in the trial and conviction processes of the United States because it ensures proportionate and constitutional punishment is apportioned.

The Fourth Ammendment

Video

Written Component

In Britain, general warrants allowed the Crown’s messengers to search without cause any person suspected of committing an offense; while in the colonies, the Crown used “writs of assistance” as general warrants, but without time restraints.  Both controversies have led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment speaks to the idea that it is illegal for the government or government authority, such as a  Police officer or Military Personnel, to search or claim your person, property, whether that is your house, car, dog or any other sort of property, without a search Warrant.

 

The 21st century and the advent of modern technology has led scholars to debate whether The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the Internet Age where digital information can be readily accessed via the cloud or third parties “tracking” data. According to Orin Kerr a legal scholar, taking online data should be reasonable search and seizure, because if a burglar had just robbed a store and posted a picture of them with the money, it would only make sense for the court to constitutionally “seize” that photo, and use it in the Court of Law. Carpenter vs. United States was a U.S. Supreme Court case that took place in April 2011. Police detained 4 men who had committed armed robbery and the FBI used the cell phone numbers of these 4 men to determine additional charges. This Amendment connects to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense as they both share themes of independence and inalienable rights.

 

I agree with the view saying that certain data sent to a third party/cell companies should remain private. ‘Public’ information should only be information that you choose to publicize, for if you do not know what is public or not, it violates your rights because it is publicizing data without your consent, and the government should not be able to use that information. Public information should only be info you choose to disclose. If for example you choose to have a private account for example, that information (posts, tweets, etc.) should remain as private information. On social media accounts, there should be options to allow the website to disclose your information to the government/make it public. The user should know whether or not information is public. If they say no, the government will not have access to this information.

 

 

 

 

Dassori – 9th Amendment

Video

Written Component

While the Constitution was being ratified, several Antifederalist state representatives only approved the document with the expectation that a bill of rights would be added afterwards to protect the people from an overly powerful government. However, because Federalist James Madison worried that a bill of rights would send the message that any other rights not listed were not protected by the government, he proposed the addition of a statement to protect unenumerated rights. His proposal resulted in the addition of the Ninth Amendment, which states that just because some rights are named in the Constitution does not mean those not mentioned are not protected by the government. 

The Ninth Amendment, which is notoriously vague, has been interpreted differently by many different Supreme Court judges and Constitutional scholars. Three prevalent interpretations of these unnamed rights are rights that are defined on a state-by-state basis, the natural rights of life, liberty, and property each individual has, or any imaginable right that the Constitution does not explicitly deny. Another interpretation ignores the Ninth Amendment because it does not concretely prove the existence of other rights or explain them in enough detail to be valid in a court case. 

Estelle Griswold used this amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut when she argued that married couples have a right to privacy and therefore a right to use contraception. Although privacy is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Griswold used the Ninth Amendment and several other amendments to win her case, arguing that privacy is an assumed right of the American people and cannot be restricted by the law. Griswold v. Connecticut provides an example of how several judges interpreted this amendment differently, however, as only Justice Goldberg believed the right to privacy was represented in the Ninth Amendment while other judges found it in the Fourteenth Amendment or did not find privacy in the Constitution at all. 

I am most strongly persuaded that the “unenumerated rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment refer to natural or unalienable rights. These rights are featured in the writings of many of the Constitution’s framers and their Enlightenment contemporaries and are seen clearly in the Declaration of Independence. Because it was not specifically stated that the rights would be defined by the states or that they were completely limitless, I think the framers were referring to their own ideas of basic human rights, a concept that heavily influenced the rest of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. I would change this amendment to specify what kind of rights it was meant to protect because I think its vagueness restricts its power. By not clearly defining what it protects, the amendment allows many potential rights, such as the right to privacy, to be ignored by someone whose interpretation of the amendment did not include that right. If the Ninth Amendment had specifically stated that it, for example, protected natural rights, modern judges would be more likely to interpret it accurately instead of ignoring or abusing it.