amendment

The Eighth Amendment: What are the limits?

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, it gave the federal government significantly more power than the Articles of Confederation had had. One of these powers was to decide what constituted a federal crime, and what the subsequent punishment would be. There were worries that the government would create and use torture to oppress citizens. For this reason, the Eighth Amendment was added. In its most basic form, the amendment stops the federal government from doing anything too harsh or barbarous; examples pointed out by debaters at that time include the Spanish Inquisition. Torture as a means of punishment was deemed unconstitutional, as was torture as a means to gain information or a confession. Additionally, the amendment prohibits the federal government from making bail money too expensive and from fining citizens excessively.

Despite the previous two points, the majority of debates surrounding the Eighth Amendment focus on the point surrounding punishment. When discussing this amendment, scholars argue if courts should judge punishments by the 1791 standards that were present during the amendment’s creation, or by modern standards. One scholar, John F. Stinneford, makes a case that the Eighth Amendment should be viewed through 1791 standards. He says that a more modern interpretation would allow the Supreme Court to use the vague interpretation to accomplish their own partisan goals, pointing to Judges Scalia and Thomas’s severely narrow definition of the Eighth Amendment to prove his point. On the contrary side of the argument, Bryan A. Stevenson argues that the Eighth Amendment should be updated in the minds of the court, in order to preserve equality and adjust to the standards of decency in America as they evolve over time. Stevenson uses concrete examples to point out that these notions have changed over time in the past, pointing out how, for example, whipping is now considered unconscionable.

In this fashion, the court needs to prohibit modern punishments that did not exist in 1791. He points out the practice of extended solitary confinement as an example of a punishment that had not been implemented in 1791, but he thinks would be considered cruel. He says that the Amendment serves the country well, but that it must be extended to more than just its historical context. Ultimately, Stevenson’s argument is more convincing, utilizing extremely relevant and specific examples of how the Eighth Amendment’s vagueness has been detrimental. Stinneford makes an interesting point on potential abuse in the Supreme Court, but we have some major disagreements – the main one being that he is worried about the abolition of the death penalty, which he argues is a justifiable punishment. Fundamentally, I disagree with that conclusion, as does Stevenson. Additionally, Stinneford argues that the Eighth Amendment has protected Americans from the federal government, but I’d argue that it has not actually stopped cruel and unusual punishments from occurring: one only needs to look at the government practicing solitary confinement, drug cocktails, the electric chair, or waterboarding. I certainly find these punishments cruel and unusual, and I can find no constitutional or moral justification for any of them, no matter the context surrounding the Eighth Amendment. Either the federal government admits that it does not follow this amendment, or the meaning of “cruel and unusual” is expanded and these practices are stopped.

The Ninth Amendment – Arabella Moffitt

Video

Written Component

During the Constitution’s ratification process, a group emerged known as the Anti-Federalists. This group favoured a strong state government and a weak central government. The Anti-Federalist’s primary fear was that the new American Government would have too much power over states and individuals and threaten individual liberties. On the other hand, a group known as Federalists, who believed in a strong central government and a weak state government, firmly believed that the Constitution did not need the addition of a Bill of Rights. One notable Federalist, James Wilson, argued against including The Bill of Rights. Wilson insisted that adding a Bill of Rights would imply that any right that was not mentioned did not exist. Despite this, the Federalists agreed to add amendments to the Constitution to protect the rights of the people and to satisfy the demands of the Anti-Federalists. After the ratification of the Constitution on September 25h, 1789, a Federalist name James Madison proposed 12 different amendments to the Constitution to Congress, 10 of which were ratified by the states and became collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The Ninth Amendment is commonly understood to mean that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights should not be used to conclude that American Citizens do not have any rights beyond those outlined. However, much debate is over what James Madison meant by “Rights retained by the people”. It is believed that James Madison intended that “Rights retained by the people” referred to people’s natural rights. For example, in Madison’s notes for his proposed amendments, he refers to the freedom of speech as a natural right and that the people retained it due to its standing as a natural right. On the other hand, Roger Sherman believed that “rights retained by the people” referred to people’s individual rights, which are given to them upon their entrance into society. This included acquiring property, pursuing happiness and safety, and press freedom. However, since only some of these individual rights were included in the Bill of Rights, based on the Ninth Amendment appears to have been designed to prevent others which are not included from being taken away by the government.

The legal effect of the Ninth Amendment, in its original meaning, is that it serves as a rule of construction. It tells people how not to interpret a written Bill of Rights, specifically that just because specific rights are listed or mentioned does not mean they are any more important than those not mentioned. Due to this, the Ninth Amendment is inconsistent with one of the footnotes in The United States V Carolene Products (1938). The footnote suggests that when a law goes against the rules stated in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, there is less room for assuming that the law is conditional. This opinion goes against the Ninth Amendments’ rule of construction by downplaying rights that are not explicitly included. If allowed to amend the Ninth Amendment, I would not. The vague nature of the Ninth Amendment allows for flexibility in recognition of new rights that could emerge over time, reflecting society’s evolving needs and values. Amending the language of the Ninth Amendment would hinder the flexibility that it provides.

Amendment VI – Julian Shapiro

Video

Written Component

Amendment VI:

 

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.

 

The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides a set of rights for the accused that are crucial to America’s legal and prosecution process. These rights, since their original uses in the context of the 18th century, have evolved and been interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the late 18th century, cases were most often debated with the prosecutors and defendants themselves. The 6th Amendment built on this, with the purpose of allowing both the prosecuting and defending sides to each present their own arguments and evidence, resulting in a more equal process with less emphasis on the court itself investigating the case. 

 

One of the most significant rights which the 6th Amendment outlines is the right to a “speedy and public trial.” The importance of this right is that it helps provide fairness to the defendant; it creates a swift system preventing the defendant from being held under unproven accusations for long periods of time and making sure all evidence is presented before it is altered or lost. The right generally requires that the case starts within a certain duration of time after the incident, or the defendant can dismiss the case. A “speedy” trial is, however, subjective, and the Constitution does not provide a more specific duration, causing divergent interpretations. It was most significantly debated in the 1972 Barker v. Wingo case. In 1958, Two men, Manning and Barker, who killed a couple were indicted. The state, however, convicted Manning first, as there was more evidence against him, and he would later have testimony to help convict Barker. Barker was finally convicted in 1963, five years after the crime, and claimed he had been denied the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Barker’s claim, saying a “speedy” trial is not firmly defined and depends on the circumstances. In this case, though it was long, there was no prejudice against Barker in the trial and he had not actually requested a faster trial during the case.

 

The right also provides publicity to the trial. The basis of this is that it is open, allowing for more people and media to have opinions on the case, as well as preventing corruption and judicial bias that may occur in a private case. Another right the 6th Amendment provides for the defendant’s benefit is the compulsory process clause, requiring witnesses requested by the defendant to attend the court. Additionally, prosecutors’ witnesses must be “confronted” against the defendant in person, in order to require evidence that can be questioned by the defendant and jury under oath.

 

The final and most debated right described in the 6th Amendment is the assistance of counsel, which guarantees the defendant a lawyer if they wish. Those who can afford to can hire a lawyer of their choice, while those who cannot are entitled to one paid for by the government. The extent of this clause has been debated, most significantly in the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright case. Gideon, who had been the defendant in a state court, requested a lawyer, however was denied the right as it was not a part of the state’s laws for a trial court. The case reached the Supreme Court, who unanimously decided in Gideon’s favor, extending the right mentioned in the 6th Amendment to be extended to defendants state courts. The decision was a milestone in the protection of legal rights, as most cases are in state courts rather than federal ones.

 

The 6th Amendment is a crucial democratic legal right that has been often changed through the Supreme Court. I believe the amendment still needs change, specifically in clearly defining the amount of time in which a trial must start, to better ensure a fair case.

Amendment II

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment or popularly known as The Right to Bear Arms was originally created to allow citizens to protect themselves against the attacks of the militaries of other nations. When the amendment was created the United States had just fought Britain and was worried that Britain would retaliate against them at any moment.   The amendment was created because it would take too long to get the national military together to fight back against surprise attacks. However, since its original creation, the interpretation of this amendment has changed significantly. In the modern day, many perceive this amendment to say that citizens are allowed to own guns.  

One side to the argument is that the Second Amendment should stay as long as it is used to the original purpose of the amendment.   Because the amendment was vague, many people misunderstood the amendment and each person understood it in a different way. Questions have risen over parts of the amendment that were not mentioned in the constitution such as the right to bear arms in public and which type of guns were allowed to be owned by a common citizen.  

The other side to the argument is that similar to the First Amendment there is a point where reason overrules the amendment. For example, despite the notion that there is freedom of speech, one cannot commit perjury or fraud. Also despite the right to bear arms one cannot possess a nuclear bomb.   Many agree with the amendment in which it means that a law abiding citizen can own a gun and protect themselves against opposing governments or criminals. The controversy begins with which type of guns can be owned and by who. Many people who disagree with the Second Amendment believe that guns can be allowed to be owned by citizens but it should be more difficult to purchase a gun.  

Originally there was a law in Washington DC that stated that all guns must be registered and that all guns stored at home must be unloaded and locked. Police Officer Dick Anthony Heller was denied the right to own a handgun but was denied. He then sued the District of Columbia.   The supreme court reversed this law as it was a violation of the Second Amendment. This shows that even hundreds of years after the creation of the constitution, the constitution is still looked at to decide laws around guns.  

While I believe that this amendment should remain, I think that there needs to be stricter guidelines and restrictions around who can own guns where they can carry them. For example I think that it should be more difficult to purchase a gun and if you are not a part of the military or a police officer, it should be illegal to possess a gun outside of your property. While in many areas it is already illegal to carry a loaded gun, the punishment for doing so should be harsher.

Amendment 10 (Noor Nassar)

Video

Written Component

The 10th Amendment is commonly understood to mean that powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution are given to state governments or the people. Essentially, the federal government’s power is only derived from the Constitution. The amendment does not change the relationship between the powers given to state governments and federal governments, but it emphasizes that state governments may establish and practice their own laws, as long as they do not conflict with the jurisdiction of the federal government. 

In 1787, the original draft of the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. This is because federalists strongly believed that the Bill of Rights would imply that the federal government has powers beyond what is explicitly given in the Constitution. They argued that the federal government had limited and strictly enumerated powers and therefore there was no need to clarify individual rights. However, without a Bill of Rights, several states refused to ratify the Constitution because they believed that people’s individual liberties needed to be explicitly protected to ensure the American people couldn’t be taken advantage of by the federal government. The 10th amendment serves the purpose of addressing the Federalists’ concerns by stating that the federal government can only exercise rights explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court often relied on the tenth amendment to push back against assertions of national power. Additionally, historians argue that the tenth amendment has often been misinterpreted in political and moral contexts. The powers enumerated to state governments in the tenth amendment were abused because state governments justified the enforcement of racial inequality using the tenth amendment. In the Supreme Court case New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court stated that the tenth amendment is “essentially a tautology” and “is not derived from its text.” Other historians believe that the tenth amendment serves a similar purpose to any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment reminds the federal government that federal powers cannot be inferred but have to be instead explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

One significant Supreme Court ruling to the tenth amendment was New York v. United States (1992). The federal government enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act in 1985 which required states to dispose of radioactive waste within their state’s borders. However, disappointed with these efforts, New York State filed suit against the federal government and argued that the federal government does not have the authority t o regulate state radioactive waste management. The decision was 6-3 for New York because the provision that state governments were forced into the service of the federal government was seen to violate the tenth amendment. This case illustrates the tenth amendment’s importance in making the division of powers between federal and state governments far more concrete and distinct. 

The first debated interpretation is far more persuasive because it signifies the usage of the tenth amendment only when it is convenient to the federal or state government’s case. The idea that state legislators can use the tenth amendment to justify pieces of legislation that promote racial inequality is extremely appalling. The Supreme Court arguing that the tenth amendment should be interpreted as a “tautology” allows for drastic misinterpretation of the law. It allows for the federal government to interpret and gain more power than is explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from around the new United States of America came together to formulate a strong nation to replace the weak confederacy that emerged after the Revolutionary War. Article Five of said Constitution was written to give the country the ability to change as the world around it changed. Article Six was created to hold up the financial reputation of America by transferring debts, as well as sustain the standards set in earlier articles as the supreme law of the United States. Article Seven was created to streamline the process of ratifying the Constitution. 

Article Five spells out the process that the federal government has to go through in order to amend the Constitution. Either Congress can present an amendment by gathering two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to approve the amendment, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states come together to propose an amendment, Congress will call a convention and amendments will be proposed. Following this, three-fourths of state legislators must ratify the amendment. Congress could also decide to have the states call a convention purely to ratify an amendment. A final clause was tacked on to the end of this amendment stating that no amendment could be passed inhibiting the slave trade until 1808. Article Six transfers the debt and prior treaties from the national government under the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution. It also states that the federal government (and therefore the Constitution) is the supreme authority in America. Finally, it specifies that oaths should be made by legislators and executives to the people of the United States instead of a religious test as a barrier to entry. Article Seven of the Constitution states that only nine states are required to ratify the Constitution for it to be the binding federal document, and it lists all 13 states and the order in which they will call a Convention to vote on the validity of the Constitution. 

An example of a complex ratification process is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), an amendment to codify the equality of the sexes in law, was ratified by 30 states within the first year of its proposal but it met opposition after this 30-state benchmark over concerns that women would no longer be exempt from compulsory military service as well as other issues. There are other cases of discrepancy between federal and state power like some campaign finance laws and the legalization of marijuana in spite of the Controlled Substances Act.

During the initial creation of the country, the goal was as little central regulation as possible, but this turned out to be a weak way to organize the United States as many consequential regulations changed from state to state. The Constitution’s significance comes from the combination of general principles found in state Constitutions and rolled them into one document that set the federal government as the highest rule of law in the United States. Instead of changing the federal supremacy clause, the Constitution should clarify the Elasticity Clause or refine the Tenth Amendment to clarify specifically how elastic the powers of the federal government is or where state jurisdiction starts. 

Bibliography

Congress, The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy Gap with States, H.R. Doc., at 3 (Mar. 6, 2023). Accessed June 2, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Equal Rights Amendment.” Britannica. Last modified April 27, 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Equal-Rights-Amendment.

Oyez. “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Election Commission.” In Oyez. Last modified 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-489.

Matilda Beyer History Showcase Seventh Amendment

Video

Written Component

The seventh amendment was created in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights to preserve a citizen’s right to trial by jury and to keep the case from being reexamined in court. This amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as car accidents, corporation disputes, and employment disputes when the lawsuit exceeds twenty dollars.

This amendment played a large part in gaining independence during the revolutionary war. American juries were used to nullify laws from Britain, especially ones pertaining to unfair taxing. Trials by jury have proved to be important after the war in protecting citizens from biased judges and government abuse of power. Once the jury has come to a conclusion, the case cannot be reexamined in court. The importance of juries led to Americans making civil jury trials a right for all citizens. Despite this amendment, juries only decide less than one percent of civil cases filed in court. In the 1930s, courts preferred judges and gave them more power, therefore decreasing the popularity of juries.

To exercise this right, the claim must be civil rather than a criminal claim, meaning that money for damages is seeked. It must be based on federal law, or in federal court, not state. The lawsuit must be over 20 dollars. As mentioned twice in the amendment, the lawsuit must also be a claim to which the English common law of 1791 would have also allowed a jury. Common law deals with monetary payment being sought for loss, as opposed to equity law where the issue is fixed by imposing court orders. The most uncertain part of the seventh amendment is what exactly “common law” means. In the United States, common law is law declared by judges, but in 1791 it meant the law and procedure of the courts that used juries.

While the rules around the common law are strict, some Supreme Court cases, for example Colgrove v. Battin in 1973, demonstrated how substance comes before procedures. This court case allows the jury of civil cases to consist of six people instead of twelve. In the case Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television in 1998, the court denied Feltner’s request for trial by jury because this amendment does not provide this right on statutory damage. Later, it was decided that the seventh amendment does extend the right to trial by jury for copyright disputes.

This is not the case for patent claims, as shown in the Markman v. Westview Instruments case two years prior, where it was decided that judges, not juries, should find the acquired meaning of patent terms. The seventh amendment deals with the protection of individual rights and keeps the government from getting too involved in the judicial process, similarly to John Locke’s ideas that a judge should be unbiased. When judges are unreliable, trial by jury is the answer. This is one of the most straightforward amendments, and there is not much that can be done to make it any clearer.

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

Jack Korngold — 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

First Amendment — Freedom of Speech Clause 

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

The concept of free speech per the First Amendment is a critical principle introduced in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The historical context for this clause is rooted in the American experience with the oppressive government of the British Empire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to protect the rights of individuals from the power of the central government. Even before the Revolution, journalist John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial government of Massachusetts for printing unpopular truths about the Governor.

This prosecution reflected a suppression of free speech, which the colonists believed violated their inalienable rights. The common interpretation of free speech rights has been the duty to protect both an individual’s and groups’ ability to express themselves from government intervention across various mediums, including speech, print and online forums. This protection is quite broad and encompasses a variety of beliefs, and includes the protection of opinions that many Americans might find distasteful or offensive.

Even the burning of the American Flag as a form of political speech was protected by the Supreme Court as demonstrated in the ruling of the Texas vs. Johnson case in 1989. The broad interpretation of free speech rights is seen as necessary for the preservation of our democracy. A central debate about this Constitutional right is how restrictive our interpretation should be in its protection. One view is that free speech should be limited for national security purposes — in the Schenck v. United States case, the Supreme Court read the First Amendment in a restricted way so that people could not criticize the government in a time of war and argued that if there was “clear and present danger” to the country, then the speech could be restricted. In contrast, in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the court was less restrictive and ruled that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and that teachers could not stop the students from showing their opposition.

This concept of free speech in the First Amendment is clearly an example of an “inalienable right” that earlier thinkers, such as John Locke, thought must be guaranteed by a government based on the Social Contract. This right also reflects Rousseau’s view of the General Will as expressed in his conception of the Social Contract. With respect to how restrictive our interpretation should be, it would be necessary to have high standards for what constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the country as highlighted by the Schenck case.

The standards for enforcement must be strict, otherwise governments could unjustly suppress opposing points of view that represent no real threat to the country, but that interfere with an Administration’s political agenda. Some have also argued for the possibility of amending the language of this clause to remove the protections for “hate speech.” My proposal is that hate speech be more narrowly defined in the Amendment by words or images that incite or provoke violence or harm against a particular group purely because of their identity. Regardless of differences of opinion, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment is a foundational element of American society, even though we might not always agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

Bibliography

Vile, John R. “John Peter Zenger.” In The First Amendment Encyclopedia, edited by Middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger.

 

There was no information on John Peter Zenger in the Oyez Archive, and so, I cited an outside source. All of the other cases however, are from the Oyez Archive.

The Sixth Amendment: Equitable Treatment For All

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was created to both organize the legal system and help give defendants a fair and legitimate trial. The authors of the amendment created this amendment in response to the disorganized, unjust legal system in effect at the time the Constitution was ratified.  The Amendment gives defendants the right to a trial without unreasonable delay with an unbiased jury, in which the defendant is informed of their accuser and the charges against them. They are also given the right to an attorney either hired personally or by the government if the defendant cannot afford a private lawyer. The Amendment also gives defendants the right to call witnesses.  Among the many rights granted by the Sixth Amendment, “assistance of counsel” and the right to an “impartial jury” have been the most heavily debated in the courts and by scholars. 

In defining the meaning of the right to assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court has looked to the reality of the situation and the consequences to a defendant to determine if constitutional requirements are met. Often, public defense lawyers hired by the government are tasked with hundreds of cases at once, not allowing them to fully research and develop a case for a client. In some situations, public defenders ask their clients to plead guilty for a shorter sentence, even when an innocent verdict is possible, just to save time and effort. In Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 Supreme Court case, Clarence Gideon was denied his right to free counsel in a Florida trial for breaking and entering because Florida state law only required that defendants be granted counsel if the death penalty were a possible sentence. The Supreme Court held the Florida law unconstitutional, and concluded that in all trials where a possible sentence could include prison time, the defendant is entitled to “effective” counsel. 

Some scholars today argue that the scope of the Sixth Amendment should be restricted to increase its effectiveness in cases where consequences are the most grave. For example, limiting the right to situations where defendants face prison time of a year or more or potential deportation could increase the effectiveness of public defenders by reducing their caseload. Scholars also suggest that trials outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment be simplified, allowing defendants to represent themselves with minimal assistance from court clerks. These two changes could have the effect of increasing the effectiveness of counsel in consequential cases and enabling defendants to competently defend themselves in simpler situations, both of which would make trials more impartial and equitable for those who cannot afford a private attorney, part of the sixth amendment’s original purpose. 

The Amendment’s right to “impartial jury” has also ignited debate. One often discussed topic is whether juries should know about possible sentences or play a part in sentencing before coming to a verdict. This is extremely important in cases punishable by a long prison sentence, death, or deportation. For these situations, the jury needs to know their true power to further strengthen their “impartiality”, as envisioned by the amendment. However, the Supreme Court has never agreed with this point of view. Scholars cite Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court decided that lawyers must disclose to their clients if a guilty verdict could result in deportation. The court stated that not doing so would be violating the defendant’s right to “effective” counsel. It can be argued that if attorneys not letting their clients know of possible sentences is unconstitutional, then why is the jury exempt from being informed of sentencing so they can correctly understand the consequence of their verdict? Making this change to the interpretation of “impartial jury” in the Sixth Amendment would be effective in further strengthening the amendment’s goal of making trials fair and just for all.