amendment

The Third Amendment– Why is it important today?

Video

Written Component

A lot of the context behind the Third Amendment stems from America and Britain’s tensions before the American Revolution. After the Seven Years War between Britain and France, Parliament passed the Quartering Act in 1765, which required American colonists to provide barracks or inns, stables, and alehouses for British soldiers to sleep in. The colonists were also required to provide provisions such as bedding, firewood, and beer. The Third Amendment constitutionally advocates for rights that previous oppressive laws like the Quartering Act denied. It also aligns with the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including liberty and the right to personal property. 

The Third Amendment is commonly interpreted as largely limiting the federal government’s ability to quarter soldiers in any person’s private home. The term quarter in this amendment has been commonly interpreted to mean sheltering, placing, or lodging. The phrases “time of peace” and “time of war” refer to the American colonists after the Seven Years War who were forced to quarter British soldiers despite a lack of war or conflict. 

The Third Amendment is one of the least cited and independently debated amendments, but the few interpretations about it still reveal significant details about the intent behind the amendment and its importance to the Constitution throughout history. A notable landmark case directly addressing the Third Amendment was the 1982 Engblom v. Carey case. This case was the first time the Third Amendment was ever interpreted. Engblom v. Carey was a case concerning whether the state of New York violated the Third Amendment rights of correctional officers when it used their state-owned residences to house New York National Guards. In the process of analyzing the case and specific use of the Third Amendment, the Second Circuit Court ended up making three distinct interpretations. The first is how national guards fit the Third Amendment’s description of a “Soldier”. The second was how the Third Amendment’s restrictions applied to state governments as well as the federal government. Finally, the third interpretation was that the Third Amendment also applied to people who were not owners of the property, as long as they had control over the privacy of the property. All of these interpretations illustrate the Third Amendment as less of an exclusive law protecting the private properties of a select few from an oppressive government and military, but more of a law protecting the properties of the general public from various enforcers under governments of all scales. The interpretations of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey make the amendment broader and more applicable in modern contexts.

The Third Amendment and its implications are strongly connected to concepts about establishing independence and national identity. Language in this section of the constitution such as “Soldier” and “quartered” directly refers to its historical context, which included the Quartering Act. By including an amendment that directly opposed Britain’s oppressive Quartering Act, the colonies were able to future separate themselves from Britain and portray themselves as beacons of liberty, people’s rights, and anti-oppression. The Constitution’s Third Amendment is a prominent example of how the colonies were able to forge a uniting anti-Britain identity and establish themselves as an independent, revolutionary nation. This is similar to the impact of the Declaration of Independence over 10 years prior, where unique attributes of the United States were listed to contribute towards the making of a novel national and international identity. 

Second Amendment-Right to Bear Arms-Abriana Menin

Video

Written Component

Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms

The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: “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.” I will be focusing particularly on the section regarding the right to bear arms, or in other words, the right of individuals to own and carry protective weapons. The bill of rights, which was created in order to ensure the individual rights of people were established in addition to the laws of the constitution, was ratified and added to the constitution on December 15, 1791; barely a decade after the end of the American Revolution. This is significant because the United States had only recently finished fighting in the war, so it is understandable why an amendment would be added to give each individual the right to own firearms and protect themselves in the event that citizens would need to rally together in the future, whether to fight against external forces or even their own government. It is also important to acknowledge that the United States had fought in the war with an under-resourced military composed of ordinary people who had already owned firearms, therefore the people agreed it would be best to maintain that right. Furthermore, the people of the United States believed that the government should not have the right to deprive an individual of their right to bear arms just as seriously as they believed one should not be denied freedom of speech and exercise of religion. 

Although the ideals behind the amendment were unified, the interpretations of the right to bear arms were very divergent once the amendment was ratified. Many of the debates surrounding the right to bear arms all directly relate back to the reality that the United States has evolved significantly since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the United States no longer has militias, and the federal government supplies resources to the federal army, therefore there is no need for civilians to have arms at the ready in case war strikes again. More recently, the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a right to own weapons as a means for self defense; however, there were still some loopholes in the language of the amendment. These loopholes were scrutinized and regulated in the Supreme Court case “District of Columbia v. Heller” (2008). In this case, Heller argued that prohibiting concealed carry, the use of arms by felons and people who are mentally ill, along with prohibiting being armed in places like schools and government buildings, in light of modern-day society, is still lawful despite the phrasing of the second amendment, but still strives to maintain the right for each individual to bear arms for the soul purpose of self-defense. This has caused much controversy since the court ruling agreed with Heller, specifically regarding cases involving concealed-carry and what is considered self-defense. 

Moreover, the right to bear arms is a direct consequence of the founding enlightenment idea of the right to own property, and the establishment of the government as an institution that cannot take away that right, thus enforcing negative liberty. Therefore it was believed that taking away one’s right to bear arms would transitively be infringing what it means to be an American citizen. However, I do not agree that every citizen should be able to own and use arms under any circumstance. If I were to amend this amendment, I would change it to read “the right of the authorized government officials to keep and bear Arms, shall be permitted until said official proves themself untrustworthy.” This way, only people who are appointed by the government to use arms for specific purposes will be able to have access to weapons. However, if they demonstrate any reason to be fearful of the way in which they use those arms, the government has the ability to strip that official of their entitlement.

Third Amendment – Tess Harris

Video

Written Component

In the years following the Revolutionary war, a new government emerged: the Federal government, established on the basis of popular sovereignty (where the authority is sustained by the will of the people.) However, this new system spread mistrust and skepticism throughout the emergent political parties. The Anti-federalist movement in particular was strongly opposed to the idea of a Federal government, fearing that the centralized form of authority would prevent direct representation for the citizens. The party prioritized individual states’ rights and held the interest of the people in very high regard. If the newly-established Federal government found itself unable to placate the opposing party by failing to address the concerns of the citizens, the new country would be fraught with political turmoil for years to come. Fortunately, a solution was proposed: a series of amendments to the Constitution dubbed the Bill of Rights. The new document enumerated civil liberties: rights to which every citizen was entitled. The Bill of Rights states its purpose outright in the preamble: it sought to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of the [Federal government’s] powers.” The Bill of Rights bridged the gap between citizen and government, mollifying the Anti-Fedarilists by advocating for the rights of citizens.

In order to maintain an amicable relationship with their citizens (and, by extension, the opposing Anti-Federalist party,) the Federal government needed to put a long-standing grievance to rest: the quartering of soldiers at the expense of the citizens. The issue can be traced back to pre-Revolutionary war times;  In 1768, 4,000 troops were dispatched into Boston (a hotspot for patriotism-induced rioting) in order to enforce Britain’s ever-expanding influence over the colonies. This was on the heels of the Quartering Act of 1765, which dictated that the colonists would need to provide housing for soldiers. As dictated by the Quartering Act, “inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine” were annexed, and new barracks were constructed to accommodate for the influx of British troops. Colonists were outraged by this imposition, their indignation at having to co-exist with the source of their oppression culminating in the Boston Massacre of 1770. Their rage even found its way into the Declaration of Independence, as the “quartering large bodies of armed troops” was added to the long list of grievances against Britain. By encroaching on the colonists’ lives and property, the British government was clearly failing to represent the needs of their citizens. The physical and legal measures taken by the citizens indicate a deep lack of faith in their government which created a rift between themselves and political authority.

After the monarchy was overthrown, The new Federal government not only recognized the citizens’ concerns but instated a preventative measure to ensure that the unjust quartering would never happen again. This took the form of the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states that “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Third Amendment is the legal manifestation of years of resentment from the citizens. It ensures that they would no longer be burdened by soldiers, instead possessing full ownership over their property. By inscribing the amendment into law and addressing the grievances of the citizens, the Federal government proved itself capable of direct representation and, in doing so, successfully repaired the schism between citizen and government.

The Third Amendment may not seem relevant in the year 2023, as soldiers no longer pose a threat to the domestic security of American citizens. However, many modern historians have recognized the Third Amendment’s importance as the sole direct mention of civilian control over armed forces. Due to this fact, legal scholars have made the concession that the amendment is important to take into account when considering the government’s response to natural disasters, terror attacks, and problems surrounding the militarization of the police. In any case, without the Third Amendment and the Bill of Rights, the Federal government may not have survived to see modern-day America.

Oriana – The 7th Amendment

Video

Written Component

When being ruled by Britain, the colonists had no say in the British Parliament, meaning that they had no control in how they were governed, or what taxes were levied on them. So when the colonies introduced the idea of independence from Britain, colonial juries were a way for the colonies to start governing themselves. And in 1776, when the colonies finally gained their independence, the right to civil jury was included in many state laws.

However, when the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, there were mixed feelings about civil juries. The Federalists felt that including a civil jury in the constitution would lead to the nullification of laws, while Anti-Federalists believed that the lack of this law would prevent citizens from being protected from governmental abuses. Ultimately the 7th amendment was drafted into the Bill of Rights. The 7th Amendment is commonly interpreted as: The right to a jury trial in civil cases, when the case dispute exceeds 20 dollars. No judge can overturn the jury’s verdict. In the 7th Amendment, the term “common law” is used twice.

This term confused many as it was unclear what common law the writers of the Constitution were referring to. America was a young nation, and it did not yet have a common law to base this Amendment on. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Wonson, it was determined that the common law that the amendment referred to was actually the common law of England. This statement was refined in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), which declared that the 7th amendment was to be interpreted in terms of English common law as it was in 1791. The meaning of this term was clearly defined. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) case, the “substance of the common law right of trial by jury” is different in its actual application to every civil case. This means that the right to trial by jury is guaranteed, but certain civil cases can be handled with modifications to the jury, including a decreased size, or the lack of.

I agree with this ruling because there are, especially in the 21st century, many aspects that can go into each case, making them unique from each other. And in some of these cases, juries aren’t required, or would benefit without a jury. Every aspect of this amendment has been clearly defined, except the twenty dollar amount required for a civil case to be tried by a jury. This is because the impact of this dollar amount has changed over the centuries. While twenty dollars may have been a handsome amount of money in 1791, the value has decreased, not accurately representing the amount required for modern day civil cases. And may very well be the case in the future, where the price again becomes irrelevant. It’s best to remove this clause entirely.

2022-2023 Constitution Project 10th Amendment

Video

Written Component

The 10th Amendment was ratified in 1791 by the Federalist delegates, who deemed a Bill of Rights necessary. After recently winning the Revolutionary War, the United States began to create a new government. Many were worried that the Constitution gave the central government too much power. The 10th Amendment was added after the Federalists declared they would create amendments based on the states and people’s wishes. This amendment is focused on how the federal government can interpret the Constitution, as opposed to the first eight amendments that give rights to the people. The 10th Amendment clarifies that power is not allotted by the Constitution to the federal government; this power belongs to the states or the people.

Debates surrounding this amendment concern the amendments’ failings to protect the power of the people. Legal scholars Gary Lawson and Robert Schapiro claim that different interpretations are often credited to the final portion, “the States respectively, or to the people.” Although “the people” are mentioned, when invoking this amendment in cases, individuals have rarely been able to protect themselves, where states have often succeeded. Two separate state sheriffs invoked the 10th Amendment to challenge a gun control law passed by Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs in Printz v. United States because state officials are not under the administration of the federal government. This case demonstrates how this amendment does not protect the people and favors states. A case that demonstrates that an individual person is unable to invoke the 10th Amendment to challenge the federal government is that of Bond v. United States. Bond was denied the right to appeal an act by Congress that she believed went against the 10th Amendment, so she went to the Supreme Court to have her appeal heard in state court. She then lost in the appellate court, which ruled in favor of the act being constitutional. This demonstrates how the protection of the 10th Amendment typically only reaches the states and not an individual.

This provision contains concepts seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Both were written after revolutions against monarchies by men attempting to protect individual rights. The French document stated that all positions of power are not able to overexert the power they were not given. The interpretation that the people’s power is not protected by the 10th Amendment is more persuasive because, although the amendment states that power should be given to the people, an individual’s power is only considered at the state versus federal level. If a state invokes the 10th Amendment, it is because the power belongs to the state. Whereas if an individual person is unable to defend themselves by invoking the 10th Amendment, it is because the amendment lacks specificity and does not place power in the people’s hands. This amendment needs to be fixed to better suit the power given to the people. For example, by specifically stating the grounds on which individuals have power, they can invoke the 10th Amendment when these powers are abused. This adaptation would allow the people’s voices to be heard and further prevent the federal government from overstepping upon the power given to them by the Constitution.. 

The 4th Amendment – Quinn Lester

Video

Written Component

During the period before the constitution was created and America was still a part of Great Britain the British soldiers, by decree of the king, were given the right to not only arrest anybody for being suspected of a crime, but to seize their items as well if they were suspected of being used in a crime. Before life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness John Locke said that property was one of the inalienable rights, and the seizure of a citizen’s property without cause would be breaking that right.

This also plays an important role in keeping prejudice out of law to the further extent possible. The fourth amendment states that a governmental organization may not seize your property without probable cause, which is defined as reasonable evidence that you may have committed a crime and that whatever they seize would help them prove that crime.

Even after having this proof a judge must deem it reasonable and give them a warrant. This keeps officers and governmental agencies in check, which adds to the checks and balances that are already in place in the government. Many of the modern debates come from online interactions, and if what is written or said online is sufficient evidence to receive a warrant.

There have also been debates about what is considered probable cause when it comes to cars and vehicle searches. This is because it is very hard to get a warrant on a car, so the officers are expected to find reasonable evidence before searching the car. A case that represents this is Byrd v. United States, a case in which Bryd was in a rental car that he was not the renter of. Police searched the car, claiming that they did not need consent or probable cause because he was not the owner of the car, however when taken to the supreme court they ruled unanimously in favor of Bryd.

This amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches, which allows them further rights to their property. This amendment also makes it harder to make assumptions or act on assumptions based on characteristics of people instead of their guilt, as officers and governmental agencies need to get permission from a court before they take action.

The amendment, as it was written in 1791, cannot mention things like the technology that we have now, making it hard to make assumptions on how it would have been enacted in the modern era. There should also be a more set definition of what can be considered probable cause, as well as that information being public to citizens. Although this amendment seems as if it helps people get away with crimes, it also ensures that, as citizens, people will not be harassed without cause, especially based on race and gender.

Aniya S. – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Common Interpretation:

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that powers not given to the national government are granted to the states and general public. It highlights the limited and enumerated powers of the national government, while reminding of the essential role that the states and people play in the constitutional republic. The Tenth Amendment illustrates the relationship between the federal and state governments by demarcating their respective authorities. The main purpose of incorporating the Tenth Amendment into the Bill of Rights was to warn the national government about inferring or assuming powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Historical Context:

The Tenth Amendment was also made due to the lack of restrictions on national government exercising unauthorized powers over the citizens and states in the original Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution found it pointless to include a Bill of Rights for an already limited government, and even found the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to be potentially dangerous. They believed a Bill of Rights would be useless and that its vagueness would leave room for misinterpretations of certain rights. Despite the concerns, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment showed that it did not change the nature of national government. Legal scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to clarify the limits of national government to the American citizens (at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). 

Matters of Debate:

One interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is that it adds nothing substantial to the Constitution, as it simply defines the concept of “federalism”. The Tenth Amendment is simply a truism. Similarly, one matter of debate is whether the Tenth Amendment should serve as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism. Another interpretation holds that the Tenth Amendment restores a degree of balancing the powers of federal and state governments, as the enumerated powers of national government are often misunderstood. In this way, the Tenth Amendment acts as a backdrop to the governing structures outlined in the Constitution, giving some legal scholars reason to say it has “constitutional value”. The Supreme Court case, Bond v. The United States illustrates the latter interpretation, as the Court unanimously agreed that Bond should not be charged under a federal statute that violates the powers reserved to the states (Pennsylvania). It was agreed that the federal statute was beyond the enumerated powers of the national government, and therefore a constitutionally invalid law. Bond had every right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute. 

Significance:

The Tenth Amendment bears some similarities to the themes of Rousseau’s Social Contract, which asserts a relationship between individual liberty and the liberty of the government. In the “social contract”, the government maintains political authority, but must respect the people. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment holds that the national government has its designated powers, but so do the states and people. That said, I find the second interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to be most persuasive because the Amendment defines the balance of powers between the national government and states. I believe the Tenth Amendment has no reason to be further amended when it fulfills its purpose of outlining federalism in the constitutional republic. In other words, it serves its purpose well

First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, was shaped by several historical forces. One significant influence was the colonial experience of religious persecution and the desire for religious freedom among early settlers. The Founding Fathers, drawing upon Enlightenment ideals, emphasized the importance of individual liberties and limited government power. They sought to establish a system that prevented the government from infringing upon the fundamental rights of its citizens.

The Supreme Court has established that restrictions on speech based on its content, where the government targets the message, are generally unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of content-based restrictions that violate the First Amendment. Such laws distort public debate and undermine the principle of self-governance by allowing the government to control what ideas or information the people can access.

However, there are situations where the government can impose restrictions on speech under a less demanding standard. Certain types of speech have been deemed of “low” First Amendment value and are subject to restrictions, such as defamation, true threats, “fighting words” likely to incite immediate violence, obscenity, child pornography, and commercial advertising. Special relationships to the government, such as government employees or students in public schools, can be subject to content-based restrictions if their speech conflicts with their roles as public officials or students. Content-neutral restrictions, such as those related to noise, traffic, or signage, can be imposed as long as they are “reasonable” and apply to all speakers equally, without favoring specific ideas or messages.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment has become increasingly protective of free expression over time. In the past, blasphemy could be punished, and during World War I, speech promoting crime or condemning the military draft was deemed punishable. However, since the 1920s, the Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment, providing stronger legal protection for free speech and press rights.

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding campaign finance regulations. The Court ruled that political spending by corporations and unions is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The decision overturned restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. The ruling was highly controversial, with critics arguing that it opened the door for excessive influence of money in politics and undermined the integrity of the electoral process. Proponents, on the other hand, viewed it as a victory for free speech rights and the ability of individuals, including corporations and unions, to express their political views. The Citizens United decision continues to shape the landscape of campaign finance laws and remains a topic of ongoing debate and discussion.

The significance of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) case lies in its impact on campaign finance regulations and the notion of corporate personhood in American politics. The Supreme Court’s ruling, in this case, held that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thereby overturning restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures. This decision paved the way for the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees) and increased the influence of money in politics.

Ella Morgan: 10/10 Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791 and written by founding father James Madison. The Tenth Amendment, arguably the most significant amendment in the Bill of Rights, is centralized around a person’s and states’ rights. The historical forces that gave rise to this amendment was the concept of equally split power because people were terrified of kings(someone with all power) at the time and to address and respond to concerns about America as a whole at the time when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

These concerns were over individual rights, states’ sovereignty, and the balance between federal and state power, all of which the Tenth Amendment covers. This amendment, guaranteeing that citizens’ worries are taken care of, created a sense of relief within the Constitution as a whole, allowing America to appreciate it more. The commonly understood meaning of the Tenth Amendment is that it guarantees states’ rights and authority, so all the power is not confined to the federal government. It’s extremely significant because it sets the precedent for more equal power, as opposed to the federal government controlling all. Although there is one most common understanding of the Tenth Amendment, it has been interpreted in many different ways. As time progressed since the amendment was ratified, interpretations of it significantly changed, resulting in country-wide debates.

In the early 20th century, the country relied on the Tenth Amendment to control the federal government’s power over the states; however, as the federal government played a more prominent role in areas such as civil rights, commerce, and social welfare, some Americans started to believe that the Tenth Amendment was discriminatory. During the Progressive Era, some Americans asserted that by allowing the states power, the Tenth Amendment promoted outdated racist views within certain states. Because of the backlash against the Tenth Amendment, it essentially disappeared from the Constitution in the late 20th century until 1992, in the New York vs. United States Supreme Court case.

This case arose when Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, and New York objected to the act, arguing that it went against the Tenth Amendment. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of New York, ultimately bringing back the Tenth Amendment from its neglected days. This case was extremely significant in the history of the Tenth Amendment because it reinforced the importance of state sovereignty in the American federal system. Because of this Supreme Court case, the Tenth Amendment has since gained a lot more credibility than it had during the Civil Rights Acts when interpretations surrounding the amendment created prominent discourse throughout the country.

Although many citizens at the time had believed that the Tenth Amendment promoted racial inequality, it actually promotes equality. By providing a split in power between the state and federal governments, the Tenth Amendment guarantees more equality in power throughout America. It connects to many other important pieces of legislation from global history because it is the basis of human rights. The Tenth Amendment most resembles the Social Contract by Rousseau, mostly because James Madison was influenced by Rousseau, but also it’s cooperative solution between complete freedom and imprisonment to a government.

The Tenth Amendment sets a good boundary between the amount of power the people have as opposed to the government, whereas the Social Contract illustrates the importance of this moderation between the two. Today, the Tenth Amendment remains one of the most important pieces of legislation in America’s system of government, providing equality and individual rights for all citizens, and is therefore too significant to change.

William Safranek, 5th Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Fifth Amendment was one of the ten amendments that were part of The Bill of Rights, which was created in 1791 in order to make sure that the government didn’t abuse individual’s rights, appeasing Anti-Federalists, who were against a strong Federal Government. The Fifth Amendment addresses the rights of someone who has been accused of a crime, and grants them the right to a grand jury in order to have a fair trial; the right to not be charged for the same crime twice, also known as Double Jeopardy; the right against self incrimination, meaning that those charged with crimes will not be prosecuted for staying silent; and the right to due process, meaning that the government is not allowed to take a person’s freedom, possessions, or life away without going through a court system.

The Fifth Amendment also led to the Miranda Rights. When someone is arrested, the arresting officer must inform them of their Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. The Miranda Rights stemmed from the Supreme Court Case of Miranda v Arizona. Miranda was a man accused of kidnap and rape. He was not informed of his right to stay silent, and he confessed to the crimes and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. However, Miranda was granted early release because he was not informed of his constitutional rights. This case was used for the supreme court to set a precedent that the Fifth Amendment would be strictly upheld, and Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that it would be the police’s job to work within the confines of the Fifth Amendment, as well as other amendments from the bill of rights.

This case sparked fierce debates about the use of the Fifth Amendment, with some people believing the Fifth Amendment needs to be heavily enforced in order to limit the government’s power over the rights of individuals, while others believe that individuals’ rights are important, but the guilty should not be let free due to evidence gotten unconstitutionally, citing the Miranda case. Even the supreme court was divided on the matter, with the vote for Miranda to be released being 5-4.

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Tom Clark stated that he believed that strictly enforcing the Fifth Amendment would make the police’s job more difficult. Last year, Vega v Tekoh, a case very similar to Miranda v Arizona was brought to the Supreme Court. Tekoh was a male nurse who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman named Sylvia Lemus. Tekoh was interrogated by Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy Carlos Vega, who did not inform Tekoh of his Miranda rights. Tekoh confessed, but that confession was not enough for Tekoh to be found guilty.

However, when Tekoh sued Vega under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which provides the right for individuals to sue government officials for civil rights violations, the claim was not approved, with a 6-3 vote in the Supreme Court against the claim. The majority opinion, given by Samuel Alito stated that a Miranda Right violation wasn’t the same as a Fifth Amendment violation. This ruling was the opposite of the Miranda v Arizona case, implying a less strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. Of the several views of how the Fifth Amendment should be interpreted, I believe that it should be strictly upheld. While the strict use of the Fifth Amendment could lead to a few of the guilty being freed, it is ultimately more important that individuals’ rights are protected, and the innocent aren’t unjustly punished by the very government that is supposed to protect them.