bill-of-rights

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.

Kieran Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech: a key to American democracy. The First Amendment was primarily created to protect American citizens from a totalitarian government. As disagreements heightened between Great Britain and the colonies, Jefferson became one of the key American revolutionaries fighting for the representation of those being silenced in governmental decisions. Even before the formation of the United States Constitution, Jefferson was no stranger to directly advocating for free speech.. Free speech was a huge priority to Jefferson as he began to design the framework for the United States, thus, leading to the First Amendment. 

However, in a modern democracy, there are incidents where the First Amendment can come into question. The events of January 6th, 2021, at the United States Capitol have ignited a heated debate about whether former President Donald Trump can be held accountable for his role in inciting the storm on Capitol Hall. Essentially, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause protects people’s rights to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government censorship. It covers various forms of expression, such as speech, press, assembly, and petition. This timeless right ensures that citizens can engage in public discourse, challenge authority, and freely express differing opinions. However, there are instances where the first amendment’s protection can be taken away. For example, there’s an Incitement exception which states  that if speech is used to incite violence it would no longer be protected by the first amendment. This clause plays heavily into the ongoing debate of the accountability of Donald Trump. His actions leading up to the January 6th incident have been a subject of intense debate. There are two main perspectives each utilizing the first amendment to aid their argument, here are the two sides:              

Incitement and Responsibility:

One viewpoint states that Trump’s accusation of election fraud, his  “Stop the Steal” rally before the storming of capital hall, and his refusal to accept the election results created the atmosphere that led to five people being killed during the violence and many more being injured. People that believe Trump should be held accountable argue that his words and actions broke the incitement exception and therefore were no longer protected by the first amendment, as he  encouraged his followers to engage in unlawful behavior. They argue that Trump, as a public figure and the President at the time, had a responsibility to use his platform responsibly and promote peaceful resolutions.

Protected Political Speech:

Others argue that Trump’s claims, although controversial and provocative, could be classified under protected political speech. They strongly emphasize that the First Amendment holds the right to express strong opinions and engage in heated political discourse. Supporters of this perspective claim that holding Trump accountable would set a dangerous model for restricting free speech. They strongly emphasize the importance of protecting political discourse, even if it includes statements that some may find objectionable. On top of this they argue that no direct statements asking for his supporters to storm capitol hill, were made by Trump. I believe that Trump should be held accountable for his actions because although he did not directly state that his supporters should attack, he did imply it by saying that this was a “test of strength.” In conclusion, the debate surrounding the accountability of Donald Trump for the events of January 6th reflects the complexities of applying the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause.

 

Austin Gordon – Fourth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most impactful constitutional amendments, with key implications throughout all 250 years of America’s history. The amendment provides people the right to not have their “persons, houses, papers, and effects”, or in today’s terms, themselves, their home, their papers, or any other property, searched or seized/detained by the government. In order for the government to do so, they must have a search warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

The amendment additionally states that any search warrant must be specific in describing what can be searched or seized by the government.This amendment is primarily in response to “writs of assistance”, which were general search warrants that allowed officials to search any location they deemed suspicious, issued by the British before the revolution. This allowed British officials to search essentially anything they wanted, allowing them to become massively intrusive and invade the privacy of colonists.

The fourth amendment was made to ensure that these abusive and unjust practices were not replicated by the new American government, and made sure that a point of revolutionary outrage was addressed in the Constitution. The requirement for search warrants to be highly specific made by the amendment is in direct response to the writs, as the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that officials could not abuse search warrants to unnecessarily invade privacy.  In the nearly 250 years since the amendment was written, security, law enforcement, and technology have changed in ways unimaginable to the Founding Fathers, leaving it up to the courts to interpret the amendment and apply it to new situations. The most important fourth amendment case was Weeks vs United States in 1914, in which Weeks argued that the items that were seized from him illegally could not legally be used against him in court.

The court sided unanimously with Weeks, ruling that any illegally acquired evidence could not be used in court. This case created a consequence for violating the fourth amendment, and without it, the rights it provides could not be effectively upheld. More recent cases like Kyllo vs United States in 2001, in which Kyllo argued that the police’s use of thermal scans on his home without a warrant was a violation of the fourth amendment, and won. Cases like this one have allowed the fourth amendment to evolve and protect the people against new technology or policing practices.

Justices dissenting in cases like these will often argue the originalist interpretation of the amendment, arguing that we should only consider the amendment within the scope of the era in which it was created. I, as well as the majority of legal scholars, disagree with this theory, and believe that evolving fourth amendment protections is necessary to protect rights. One potential way to further protect people’s fourth amendment rights would be to encourage congress to create laws around new security practices or technologies to enforce compliance with the fourth amendment, as the courts can only step in once a violation has already occurred. But as long as our legal system stands, the fourth amendment will continue to protect the American people for years to come.

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

Video

Written Component

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

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

 

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

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

 

Layla Boyce: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individual rights by ensuring a fair and just legal system. One event does not appear to have prompted the addition of the Fifth Amendment; rather, the amendment was born out of a recognition of the importance of a just legal system. The Fifth Amendment includes five separate protections: right to a trial by jury (the right to be judged by an unbiased audience of informed citizens), protection against “double jeopardy” (one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense), protection against self-incrimination (individuals are not compelled to implicate themselves), the right to a fair and speedy trial (cases should not involve prejudice or unnecessary delays), and protection of private property (without compensation, the government cannot seize personal property). Of these provisions, one of the most controversial features of the Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination, commonly known as the “right to remain silent”.  

The relevant text of the Amendment reads, “ …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”.  Generally, it is interpreted to mean individuals are permitted to refuse to answer incriminating questions or “take the 5th” during a criminal trial.  These protections have been extended to the pre-trial investigation stage.  Law enforcement is obligated to inform suspects in custody of their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by reading them an explanation known as a Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, demonstrates the issues caused by the broad language of the Fifth Amendment. Archie Dixon was questioned first about forgery without being Mirandized and his requests for an attorney were ignored. Subsequently, during a second interrogation after receiving Miranda warnings, he confessed to murder. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the police’s actions during the first were unconstitutional and that the second questioning was thus impermissibly tainted. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision arguing that “Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody…” It was decided that there was no nexus between the improper unwarned admission to forgery and his later Mirandized confession to murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dixon’s confession was properly elicited and reinstated his conviction.  

Furthermore, Griffin v. California (1965), a Supreme Court case, challenged the practice inferring guilt against defendants who employed their Fifth Amendment rights. Many people then were coerced into testifying to prevent the assumption of guilt.  The Supreme Court decided in Griffin this practice rendered the Fifth Amendment protections hollow as no one should be  ‘made “worse off” by asserting the Fifth than by not asserting it.’

The Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring due process rights, and safeguarding property rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a significant role in protecting individual rights against the potential abuses of a  powerful government.

Parker – Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution is interesting and especially difficult to grapple with because of the lack of clarity in the writing of it. It reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Prior to the Revolutionary War, the Americans had been under British rule and had witnessed different forms of harsh punishments. They also wanted to protect individual liberties as much as possible and by preventing “Excessive bail,” they took some power away from the government because ultimately, the colonists were still afraid of giving too much power to the government. Although confusing, there are only so many possible interpretations of such simple writing. A common one is that bail should not be priced at a very high amount and that there would be a prohibition of inhumane and barbaric punishments and consequences.

The problem with the phrasing of the Eighth Amendment is the phrasing is overly simple to the point where it is nearly impossible to know how the author of this section intended for it to be interpreted. For example, Some people think that a “Cruel” punishment is going to jail in the first place and others think that the death penalty falls under “Cruel” punishments. A common claim made by legal scholars is that the treatment of the Eighth Amendment should evolve over time as society changes. Obviously the definition of “Cruel and unusual” will change and has changed over time. When the constitution was being written, people were still getting branded and hanged in public. Those forms of punishment haven’t been used in the states in an extremely long time. 

A famous court case that involves the Eighth Amendment is Atkins vs. Virginia. The case dealt with the question: is it cruel or unusual punishment to sentence people with intellectual disabilities to the death penalty? Ultimately, it was deemed cruel and or unusual because it was decided that people with intellectual disabilities lacked understanding of what the causes of their actions were and that they did not understand the consequences of them. A major factor in the decision of this case was in fact, the eighth amendment because ultimately, putting mentally challenged people to the death penalty was deemed “Cruel and unusual.”  

This year, we have learned about many forms of harsh and brutal punishments, so this was especially interesting to see that a country tried to mitigate them. It’s also fascinating to see how hard the authors tried to move away from British themes and practices; such as “Cruel and unusual” punishments. Out of all the arguments surrounding the Eighth Amendment, I find that the perception of it should and will continue to change over time. In my opinion, it is completely irrational to treat the Eighth Amendment like it was treated back in the eighteenth century because we’re not living in the eighteenth century. Dealing with issues from an eighteenth century perspective today, in the twenty-first century, is almost laughable if you think about how much has changed in the last 250 years. If I could, I would keep this clause in the constitution, but I would make sure to change the language to something more specific and have it reflect the current time period. It would also make sense to add something like, “The eighth amendment will be amended every 50 years” or something of that nature. Overall, I do think that the Eighth Amendment is important to the constitution, but with some changes, it could be much more valuable and applicable to solving different cases.

Amendment V

Video

Written Component

One of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights comes from the fourth clause of the fifth amendment: the right to due process of law. The basis for this right dates back to the Magna Carta, a charter of english liberties granted by King John to his citizens in 1215. Clause 39 of this charter reads, “[n]o free man shall be arrested or imprisoned . . . except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The ideas of “lawful judgment” and “law of the land” evolved into the due process clause, which is the reiteration that the government must abide by the law and its process. However, it is important to note that the fifth amendment only applies to the federal government while the fourteenth amendment addresses due process in relation to state governments. Over time, two subdivisions of due process emerged: procedural and substantive.

The former addresses the fairness of the process by which the law is executed, an example being the right to fair notice. Most importantly, this right establishes the vagueness doctrine, which is the idea that the Court can deem a law not valid if it is unclear. The logic is that, if too vague, the law does not give people fair notice as to what it is stating. In contrast, substantive due process prevents the government from restricting certain natural rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This branch of due process has caused a lot of controversy.

Some believe it protects rights that should be guaranteed. Others think it has no Constitutional basis and impedes the government’s power as it controls what rights it can and cannot restrict. Regardless, the due process clause is a manifestation of several key principles of the Constitution. The first one it embodies is separation of powers as it gives sole jurisdiction of restricting the rights of life, liberty, and property to the judiciary.

The removal of these rights can only be done through the legal system, meaning the executive and legislative branches have no power in this regard. Additionally, the debates over substantive due process are reflective of the struggle to balance a strong national government with individual rights that has existed since debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the drafting of the Constitution. While some believe substantive due process is not truly founded in the Constitution, it should be more widely seen as a legitimate interpretation.

The Constitution was written over two centuries ago, meaning it was written with a society that existed during that time, not the present one, in mind. As the times change and our social laws adapt, the interpretation of the Constitution must as well in order to ensure the continued protection of natural rights.

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.

Alex – The Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Context

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Eighth Amendment states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The history of the ideas in this clause can be traced back to even before the Articles of Confederation were written; in 1689, the British government adopted a bill of rights that included protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The original United States Constitution did not offer the same protection, instead giving the federal government the power to create federal crimes and punish perpetrators. However, many opponents of the Constitution expressed the fear that giving Congress this power would eventually lead to corruption and the use of punishment as a method of oppression. As such, the Constitution was amended to include protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

Common Interpretation

As suggested by its title, the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress from imposing unjustifiably harsh punishments on criminal defendants. This protection can be divided into two categories: cruel and unusual punishment, which refers to penalties that involve unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering, and disproportionate punishment, which refers to penalties that are disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed. “Cruel and unusual punishments” are commonly interpreted as punishments that are fundamentally barbaric or lack a legitimate penological purpose; these are the types of punishments that would violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the courts’ definition of what constitutes excessive barbarism has shifted throughout the time since the Eighth Amendment was ratified.

 

Matters for Debate

The vague language of the Eighth Amendment has allowed for certain debates to consistently surface in contemporary discussions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. One of these debates questions what the current standard is for determining if a punishment is barbaric enough to violate the Eighth Amendment—whether the most important consideration is what was accepted when the Amendment was ratified in 1791, current public opinion, or the subjective morality of the courts. One progressive argument relies on the concept of “evolving standards of decency,” which asserts that the Court should consider contemporary shifts in societal attitudes and public opinion, rather than the originally intended meanings of America’s Founding Fathers. However, another prominent argument is that a punishment can be judged by its length of practice; essentially, a punishment deemed acceptable by multiple generations of Americans is still Constitutional until it falls out of practice for multiple generations, at which point it can be labeled cruel and unusual.  

 

Significance

Some of the ideas in the Constitution, but particularly in the Eighth Amendment, reflect ideas expressed by John Locke in his writing. Locke asserted that individuals possess certain inalienable rights, and that the primary purpose of the government is to protect these rights. As such, he proposed a separation of powers in order to ensure no one branch of government becomes too powerful and threatens individual liberty. This is, in essence, the goal of the Eighth Amendment: to ensure the federal government does not have enough power to oppress individuals through cruel and unusual punishment.

The 9th Amendment

Video

Written Component

 

The context that gives rise to the 9th amendment is the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution. The anti-federalists were adamant that the bill of rights be included in the constitution because if it wasn’t, the central government would have too much power. The Federalists did not want a bill of rights because they felt that every liberty could not be written and it was best to trust the government to protect the people’s liberties. The bill of rights was a list of rights that James Madison created in 1791, that lists freedoms like the first amendment. The founding father took the federalists and anti-federalists views into account when creating the 9th amendment as it was a compromise. The bill of rights was included in the constitution but the 9th amendment was created which made both parties content as the anti-federalists got a list of specific rights the federal government can’t deny them while the federalists got reassurance that natural rights would be protected. This leads to the common interpretation of the law, which is that the fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the constitution are protected under this law. The 9th amendment safeguards against the narrowing of rights by the government by ensuring that the individual liberties that are fundamental to society are protected.

The 9th amendment is very clear and nobody argues about the fact that laws that are fundamental that are not enumerated are protected. Recent discussion has arisen because of the question, “Which rights are fundamental?” There are a couple of different views on what the 9th amendment is supposed to protect. In the literalist interpretation of justice, Samuel Alito, only the rights “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, along with several other important liberties, does not fall under the 9th’s protection with this interpretation. The progressive view of the 9th amendment is that it includes “individual privacy and personal autonomy.” These differences in interpreting what law is fundamental has led to some of the most famous court cases as in Roe vs Wade, three justices said that the 9th amendment justified their decision to side with Roe as they interpreted the right to an abortion was protected by the 9th amendment? This wasn’t the first the 9th amendment had been utilized in the court of law as in Griswold vs Connecticut. The right to buy contraceptives while married was deemed as protected by the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment correlates directly to the debate we had in class about whether to include the bill of rights in the constitution or leave it out. The inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution was one of the main reasons the federalists and anti-federalist could not ratify the constitution. The 9th amendment solved that problem. The 9th amendment connects to the broader theme of the struggle between the power of the nation government and the people. The power struggle takes place throughout most all the constitution as the two main parties, the federalists and anti-federalists, compromised in the constitution’s drafting. Recently, I have leaned towards the progressive view of the 9th amendment as I view it as fundamental that laws that are necessary to society are protected. One change I would include in this amendment is the addition of laws that are deemed fundamental because it gives a starting point for future court cases that interpret if laws are fundamental and protected by the 9th amendment, or if they are not.

Roe V. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases. Last modified September 28, 2022.

     Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/

     research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases.