roe-v-wade

Jared Davis – The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Video

Written Component

The Ninth Amendment, written and framed by James Madison, is one of the most debated and ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. It states that certain rights in the Constitution do not mean that other rights do not exist. The main point of conflict revolves around identifying these additional rights. One shared interpretation is that these rights refer to the natural rights inherent from birth, as the Constitution only specifies some rights in great detail. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the amendment was crafted. During the debates between antifederalists and federalists on including a bill of rights, James Madison argued that listing specific rights would leave the government to argue that only the enumerated rights are protected. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment seeks to balance and protect both enumerated and retained rights, subject to interpretation. While the amendment has not been frequently used in cases, it has found use in both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In these cases, the court used the ninth to recognize privacy rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but considered pre-existing rights deserving protection. These examples help reinforce the amendment’s significance in countering the criticism of vague language, although the lack of explicit mention of these rights leaves room for further interpretation. The Ninth Amendment remains the most complex amendment within the Constitution, prompting us to question what new rights today may exist that should have been included in the original document.

 

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is historically and interpretively significant. It addresses concerns over individual rights, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Its inclusion aimed to prevent an excessive concentration of power in the federal government and respond to the demands of the states and their citizens. Commonly understood, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states’ rights and authority, ensuring a balanced power distribution between the federal government and the states. However, interpretations have diverged over time. Some argue it grants states broad powers to resist federal encroachment, while others believe it has limitations and does not grant absolute state sovereignty. The Supreme Court case of New York v. United States (1992) illustrates the debate over the Tenth Amendment. The ruling favored New York, reaffirming state sovereignty and reviving the amendment’s significance. It emphasized the amendment’s role in maintaining a balanced power distribution and protecting states from excessive federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment connects to federalism, balancing individual rights, government authority, and shared power. Its preservation of state sovereignty and protection of rights make it significant. The interpretation that grants states broad powers is more persuasive. It aligns with federalism and the amendment’s intent, preserving state autonomy and authority. Given its historical context and ongoing relevance, I would not advocate amending the Tenth Amendment. It safeguards state sovereignty and individual rights, and altering it could disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states, undermining the principles of federalism.

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.