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 During the Progressive Era, some Americans asserted that by allowing the states power, the Tenth Amendment promoted outdated racist views within certain states.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.

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was a response to the multiple factors of the justice system that caused a lack of order and effectiveness in handling criminal cases. There were various issues with the legal process prior to the amendment including a lack of professional police forces and no professional representation for victims and defendants. The author’s motivation for including this amendment in the constitution was to reform certain processes of the justice system with the goal of making it more fair, orderly, and thorough. The Sixth Amendment advocates for new measures around trial, legal representation, and police forces. It outlines a need for individuals to be represented by professional lawyers and judged by a fair and impartial jury. It also emphasizes the importance of procedure in court and sets a standard for effective and comprehensive trials.

One topic of debate around the Sixth Amendment is the idea of defendants being entitled to disclosure of their potential consequences if they include deportation. Scholars Jeffrey L. Fisher and Stephanos Bibas argue for the right to an appointed lawyer being restricted to more serious misdemeanors and ones that can result in severe punishments like deportation in order to relive the burden of public defense lawyers.

The also explain importance of defendants, specifically those who could face deportation depending on the legal route they take, to have the right to an appointed lawyer and an extensive opportunity to understand the potential consequences of a deal and make the best choice for how to move forward. Fisher provides evidence in the form of a court case: Padilla v. Kentucky. The events of this case took place in 2009 and 2010. It consisted of a defendant, Jose Padilla, being sent to a judge based on three counts of drug related crimes and one count of operating a tractor without a weight and distance tax number.

He entered a guilty plea for the three drug count in return for dismissal of the other count. Following this, he filed for post conviction relief on the grounds that he had not been informed of the potential for deportation by his lawyer. His ruling was reversed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and sent for an evidentiary hearing. The ruling was then reversed back by the Kentucky Supreme Court which stated that collateral consequences, and consequences around immigration were not required to be shared by counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

This court ruling illustrates the lack of clarity around the Sixth Amendment, and the contrast in views of that information lawyers should be required to disclose to their clients. This provision has a lack of clarity in some cases, such as this court case, which can connect to themes of inequality for immigrants in the legal system throughout history. I believe that if deportation is a potential consequence of a deal, defendants should be made aware of that because their lawyer should be working in their defense and their best interests completely; and this rule should be implemented in the clause.