amendment

Josie Hsieh – Free Speech in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Freedom of Speech Clause was imposed as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The clause, which was written alongside laws disclosing matters of establishing and exercising religion and the right to petition the government, is most basically understood to state that that the government cannot convict people or organizations on the basis of what they say or write. However, the First Amendment only protects citizens against government officials and agencies, not private corporations or individuals. Free speech is not a limitless right, but the Constitution never clearly defines its boundaries.

The ambiguity in the use of the terms “speech” and “press” have made the amendment susceptible to controversy, as the vast scope of interpretation of these regulations have resulted in political backlash as to what should be deemed acceptable or not. “Speech” also applies to circumstances of the Internet and most forms of expression. Symbolic speech is also protected, as seen in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) which determined that forcing students to recite the pledge of allegiance violated their first amendment rights, and Texas v. John (1989) that determined that flag burning was not prohibited in the Constitution, and could not be punished.

In most circumstances, decisions on free speech are made based on past court cases and the history of governmental regulation. Political and symbolic speech are regularly safeguarded under the Constitution, as is hate speech. However, over time, specific categories were classified as “low-value”, establishing them as unprotected by the First Amendment. These categories have been deemed non-essential to expression of ideas, but what is within these categories is still subject to debate. Schenck v. The United States (1919) was the first Supreme court case to establish a “low value” category under the conditions of speech that created “clear and present danger”, after Schenck persuaded people to not join the war. 

Following that, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) deemed “fighting words,” face-to-face personal insults which are expected to instigate immediate fights, unprotected, although it is unclear whether Chaplinsky’s insults could actually incite a fight today. Defamation was instated as unprotected in 1964, after the New York Times was charged for containing minor inaccuracies in an ad about a public figure in New York Times v. Sullivan. Obscenity was initially established as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Roth v. The United States (1957), claiming that Roth’s mailing of obscene content was “without redeeming social importance.”

Deciding these cases depends on whether one wants to uphold individual liberty or social order. Opinions on what should or is constituted as “low value” speech are still debated in the twenty-first century as the rise of new technology gives people the opportunity to say anything anonymously or with little consequence. 

 

Mehela Noel: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

 

The Fifth Amendment includes double jeopardy, grand jury, self-incrimination, and eminent domain. The Due Process Clause of Amendment V claims that no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Due process is still heavily used in courts to this day. There are two types of due process seen today in court; Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Both Procedural and Substantive Due Process are commonly seen in court cases affecting individuals of their life, liberty, and property. 

Procedural Due Process is the legal procedure that must be followed when governments are depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property. Procedural Due Process is still seen today not only in court, but daily through Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are stated when individuals are in police custody. These rights imply the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to be appointed an attorney. Miranda Rights are a representation of Procedural Due Process because it is a requirement that happens before they are in the custody of the police, which is a legal procedure that must be followed before individuals are deprived of their life, liberty, and property.

The roots of Miranda Rights date back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old woman from Phoenix filed a police report that she was kidnapped and taken to a desert, then sexually assaulted. Ernesto Miranda––the defendant of this case––confessed to kidnapping and rape during the police’s interrogation. However, prior to Miranda’s confession, the police did not inform him of his right to counsel and his right to refrain from self-incrimination. The detectives and officers did not acknowledge that Miranda had that right, therefore he was able to recant his confession, and not have it used against him in court. Ernesto Miranda’s confession was just one of many “forced confessions” during this time period. The Supreme Court determined that without certain warnings in interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, statements that are made during a custodial interrogation, are inadmissible during a trial.

Substantive Due Process focuses on liberty and whether there are fundamental rights implied when life, liberty, and property are being taken. Substantive Due Process is still a very prominent topic, especially in the landmark Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. This case began when Jane Roe, a pregnant single woman in Texas, wanted to get an abortion. She was unable to get an abortion due to Articles 1191-1194 in the Texas Penal Code, denying her ability unless it was a deathly matter. Roe challenged this, stating that the Penal Code was unconstitutional, and a violation of her fundamental rights, referring to the Substantive Due Process Clause. This argument led to massive debate, and under Roe, the Courts rejected the claim that a woman is not able to terminate her pregnancy (this was later overturned in 2022). This Supreme Court case shows the importance and connection the Due Process Clause still has to the modern day.

The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

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

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

 

Eli Ross-Ninth & Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zohar Lindemann- The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

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

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

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

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

Maddy Kim’s Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

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

 

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

 

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

Carly Schreiber – Sixth & Seventh Amendment

Video

Written Component

The United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment declares that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” This amendment developed as a result of the British colonists’ experiences, who repeatedly subjected them to arbitrary arrests and unfair trials. The founding fathers intended to create safeguards to defend the rights of people facing criminal charges and guarantee fair and just trials. 

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.” This amendment’s origins can be found in English common law traditions, where jury trials were crucial for settling civil disputes. 

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

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

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

 

Bibliography

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Isabella Graham Torres — The Sixth Amendment

Video

Written Component

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography (for written portion): 

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

Bibliography (for video): 

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

 

Campbell Langdon – Amendment VIII

Video

Written Component

The Eighth Amendment: Safeguarding Justice and Human Dignity

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1791 and is a part of the Bill of Rights, is a crucial supporter of justice and the defense of human rights. The amendment forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments and places restrictions on the use of exorbitant fines and bail for US residents. The founding fathers were committed to building a just society that upheld individual liberty. They recognized the significance of shielding citizens from cruel punishments by drawing on important texts like the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The colonies’ arbitrary and cruel treatment under British rule during the colonial era prompted the need to establish a constitutional bulwark against those similar behaviors.

The Eighth Amendment exemplifies the principles of proportionality, human dignity, and the evolving standards of decency. By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, it prevents the state from resorting to barbaric or excessively harsh penalties, ensuring that punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense. This provision reinforces the idea that all individuals, regardless of their transgressions, possess inherent dignity that should never be violated.

It also prevents the imposition of excessive fines and bail in addition to outlawing cruel penalties. These restrictions guard against the state’s potential misuse of power and advance equitable justice for all by shielding people from being unfairly subjected to disproportionate financial penalties.

This Amendment’s applicability and interpretation have been the focus of numerous court cases over the years. The definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is one of the main areas of disagreement. Some contend that the amendment should change to reflect the standards of society as they change, while others push for a rigorous reading based on original intent.

The use of the death penalty has been at the center of much controversy. Opponents argue that capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, given the possibility of wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the inherent cruelty of the act itself. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that it serves as a just response to heinous crimes and provides closure to victims’ families.

In Furman vs Georgia, the Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was constitutional if juries were given standards to guide them in their sentencing deliberations. However, they also deemed existing legal constructions for the death penalty unconstitutional. 

Similar discussions have taken place over the conditions of incarceration, such as extended periods of time spent in solitary confinement or limited access to quality medical treatment. While defenders of the techniques claim they are important for preserving security and order in correctional facilities, detractors claim they are in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment continues to be a pillar of justice and human rights, providing crucial safeguards against unusually harsh penalties, disproportionate fines, and bail. While there are still arguments about how it should be interpreted, its core goals—to protect human dignity, advance proportionality, and uphold a just society—remain constant.

The Fourth Amendment- Charlotte Simon

Video

Written Component

The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British policies allowing raiding of people’s houses and personal belongings without cause. The English government would issue “writs of assistance” essentially allowing British officers to barge into people’s homes and seize their belongings. The Framers, specifically James Madison, knew this was a direct violation of privacy and basic rights. With this in mind, Madison wrote the fourth amendment, as they did not want the Constitution to subject future Americans to unreasonable, lawless searches. The fourth amendment ensures the privacy and safety of American citizens. Personal items and property are protected by this amendment, as it prevents the police from searches and seizures of personal property without a justifiable reason.

 

The wording of the fourth amendment provides for it to be interpreted in a few different ways. Supreme Court Justices do not always agree on how the amendment should be enforced and even if the amendment should be followed in the first place. On one hand, some Justices stick to the wording of the amendments and argue that warrants are absolutely necessary, and if they are not obtained, the search would be illegitimate. However, some Justices, claiming that a warrant is not needed, as long as the search is reasonable and “upon probable cause.” Legal scholar Barry Friedman thinks that the amendment is essential to everyday protection. He argues that our data is constantly being analyzed, like internet cookies, and that the fourth amendment is protecting the people’s security and keeping the government out of our lives and property without a justifiable reason.

 

He also proposes guidelines for searches and seizures. First, he argues that no one from the executive branch can step into people’s lives without permission from another branch of government because no search is “reasonable” if the legislative or judicial cannot also agree on it. Second, warrants are favored as they are crucial for protecting public safety. Lastly, searches should be differentiated between society and suspects. Though it is a bit of a stretch, the fourth amendment is an amendment that gives power to the people, not an uncommon theme in the French Revolution. The third estate in France fought for equal taxes and power, and the fourth amendment protects the American people from an overstepping government. So while both are different, they do share the same theme of giving power to the people and keeping their respective governments in check. I am a believer in warrants and the fourth amendment as a whole. As the world and technology becomes more and more invasive, sometimes I really worry about the security of my data. The fourth amendment is in our constitution to protect us, and our property’s safety. As for warrants, they allow the policing force to perform searches and seizures in a significantly less invasive way. And, when they do perform searches/ seizures without a warrant, legally it has to be because they have a genuine reason.