Tag: history

Constitutional Amendment 11

Post author By David
Post date June 10, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 11

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The amendments in the Bill of Rights seem to be viewed by many people as part of the original constitution. It looks to me that later amendments can be categorized as either clarifications of the constitution or alterations to it. The Eleventh Amendment would fall under the category of clarification:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I don’t believe that the founders ever intended to infringe upon the sovereignty of states simply because a citizen of another state had a grievance against them. The initial intent was probably to have an impartial judge of such cases but they discovered that citizens could abuse that clause. Today we need to find ways to stop Congress from abusing some other clauses of the constitution.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history

General

Anti-Slavery Petition of 1790

Post author By David
Post date June 6, 2009
2 Comments on Anti-Slavery Petition of 1790

In my study of our founding documents I found this Petition from the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, signed by Benjamin Franklin and published in 1790, to be rather interesting. In the Letter the society asks Congress:

that you will be pleased to countenance the Restoration of liberty to {slaves}, that you will devise means for removing this Inconsistency from the Character of the American People, that you will promote mercy and Justice towards this distressed Race, & that you will Step to the very verge of the Powers vested in you for discouraging every Species of Traffick in the Persons of our fellow men. (emphasis added, capitalization original)

I wondered what they expected Congress to do considering the prohibitions on Congress’ power regarding slavery prior to 1808 as stated at the beginning of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

I assume that stepping to the very verge of the powers vested in Congress would mean that they wanted Congress to impose a tax of $10 per slave on the importation of new slaves.

Tags documents, history

General

Constitutional Amendment X

Post author By David
Post date June 3, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment X

Up until the last few months, when states have started to assert their rights through such actions as resolutions and the formation of the Patrick Henry Caucus, I am convinced that the Tenth Amendment has long been the most widely ignored of our Bill of Rights amendments.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Few people are even alive today who can remember a time when the Federal Government was not grossly trampling the rights of states. Although such overreaching has been going on to some degree for virtually our entire history it seems that especially since the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments the Federal government has been treating the states as vassals rather than sovereign territories.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, federalism, history

General

Constitutional Amendment IX

Post author By David
Post date June 2, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment IX

I really appreciated being challenged in my positions related to the eighth amendment. I would love to have people continue to let me know when they think I’m off base. As I read the Ninth Amendment I see it as a great example of why Hamilton was concerned about the side effects of having a bill of rights. At first glance it sounds very good that:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Indeed in some ways it would seem that this is the most important of the amendments in the Bill of Rights – how would it be if our rights were limited to those specifically enumerated. It is important that any assumption be that people retain rights not already enumerated.

Unfortunately I think that this amendment is the activists (and activist judges) best friend. Using the ninth amendment as a foundation they find it easy to argue in favor of such rights as the right to legal recognition of previously unheard-of family structures. Of course the right to form such attachments is a true right, but the right to legal recognition of those – not so much. How about the “right” to health care (or any other segment of a social safety net)? Definitely not.

I might not be so worried about such manufactured “rights” if it were not for the fact that these artificial rights are often used as a weapon to trample upon the true natural rights that are supposed to be protected by our Constitution.

Tags activism, amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, judges

National

Constitutional Amendment VIII

Post author By David
Post date May 28, 2009
8 Comments on Constitutional Amendment VIII

Like the second amendment, the eighth Amendment leaves no room for exceptions.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There are those who would argue that not all the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens. Depending on your definition of “rights” there may be room to make such an argument, but no definition of rights could be used to argue that this right does not apply to every person on earth and that our government should honor this right in all its actions.

This brings up the question of torture as a tool employed by our government. The amendment does not allow any room for any form of torture regardless of the existence of any Geneva convention or rules of war because torture is, by definition, cruel. The only argument that could be made is that, although cruel, torture is not used as punishment because it is administered not in retribution for crimes, but in search of information. I think it is obvious how flimsy such an argument would be.

On a related note, our current administration claims to forbid the use of torture (no way to verify those claims) but proclaims their intention to use indefinite detention on those they deem as threats but who cannot be convicted of any crime. This absolutely violates the fifth amendment right that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While the relevant laws may vary between citizens and non-citizens, indefinite detention does not allow for that due process. If a person cannot be charged and convicted of a crime they should be released. If they are not a citizen they should be released to their country of citizenship.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, Elevated, history, torture

General

Constitutional Amendment VII

Post author By David
Post date May 27, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment VII

The seventh Amendment really intrigues me:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In criminal cases the right to a trial by jury is absolute for civilians regardless of the crime in question. In civil cases the founders obviously felt that citizens might not want to trust a judge to decide cases involving large sums of money. I don’t know exactly how much $20 was in 1787 but it’s very little today. I think this amendment would be burdensome if it required rather than allowing trial by jury for any amount of money not indexed to inflation.

The intent of the amendment seems to be to preserve the citizens rights tot heir own property by making it impossible to simply get a judge to enter a judgment against them in civil court cases and thus strip them of their property. Is there some other reason that I am overlooking?

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, questions

General

Constitutional Amendment VI

Post author By David
Post date May 21, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment VI

In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).

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 principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, crime, documents, history, rights

General

Constitutional Amendment V

Post author By David
Post date May 20, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment V

We’ve all heard the concept of taking or pleading “the fifth {Amendment}” in court but there is more to that amendment than simply not testifying against yourself.

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 offence 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 Grand Jury which must indict for capital crimes in in addition to, not in place of, a jury of peers that all other criminal cases receive. The only exception in this grand jury is military courts in time of actual service. This amendment also contains the provision against double jeopardy (I wonder if that ever worried the game show hosts) although that protection only extends to criminal cases – civil cases may be brought multiple times for the same offense. (I guess that would also cover the game show. 😉 ) It also appears that a person might be compelled to witness against themselves in a civil case. The statement that we cannot be deprived of life liberty or property nor have property taken for public use without compensation seem to stand as a second bulwark against unreasonable seizure as protected in the fourth amendment.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, laws, liberty

General

Constitutional Amendment IV

Post author By David
Post date May 19, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment IV

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

culture

Constitutional Amendment III

Post author By David
Post date May 14, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment III

Amendment III is very straightforward and needs no explanation:

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.

It does remind me however that we are very fortunate as a nation to have never had a war upon our own soil in living memory. As I think about that I am reminded that we should not allow our cold wars and our wars on terror to be used as excuses to infringe upon this right or any other right that has been guaranteed under our Constitution. It also reminds me that we need to be much more selective in the foreign wars we choose to engage in.

Tags Bill of Rights, documents, history, liberty, war