The Tenth Amendment

This amendment is very similar to the ninth amendment in that it gives rights that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, only this time it gives rights to states, and not the people.  Keeping states and the federal government separate and well regulated was important to the framers of the constitution, and still continues to be important today.  This amendment keeps the states from being overtaken by the federal government in many aspects, and keeps checks in place.

Video



Reaction:

Here is a pretty clear video that shows many of the issues that the tenth amendment encompasses.  Many of these issues are very controversial, and it brings to mind whether or not the federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Article

Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws

As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard

Posted: 09/14/2008 01:32:06 AM PDT

A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.

For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.

The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.

In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?

”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.

California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients,

caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.

An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.

The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.

When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.

We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.

When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.

In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”

In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.

It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.

This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.

The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.

As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.

Response:

This article revolves around medical marijuana laws that states have recently been passing.  The federal government has taken the stance of pretty much ignoring them and still prosecuting people they find in possession of marijuana even if the state has laws that allow it.  Clearly there's going to be a heated battle about this in the next few years, and it seems to me that the states may have the upper hand.

The Ninth Amendment

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


This amendment was intentionally left vague and is, in a sense, a "catch all" for the people's rights.  It basically says that just because certain rights are not specifically mentioned in the constitution does not mean the government can deny those rights to people.  There are many different cases in which the courts have used the ninth amendment: allowing the press to report criminal trials, making votes count equally in each electoral district, contraception cases, abortion cases, gay rights cases.  Like I said, pretty much a catch all as far as rights are concerned.

Video



This is one of the most pivotal examples of the ninth amendment.  This issue has some of the most heated controversy surrounding it, hands down.  Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is a prime example of how the ninth amendment of the constitution guarantees rights that aren't specifically written into it.

Article

This is an exerpt from an article, as the full version is quite long.  Full version here: http://www.alternet.org/rights/50404/?page=entire

The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have

The First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination are well-known, but the Ninth Amendment is ignored. Pity, because it bears directly on abortion, the right to die and gay rights.

April 23, 2007  |  

The following is an excerpt from Daniel A. Farber's forthcoming "Retained by the People: The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have" (Perseus Books, 2007), available April 30.

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

Everyone knows about the First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Even the once-forgotten Second Amendment, with its "right to bear arms," has reemerged in public debate. But few people know about the Ninth Amendment, which reaffirms in broad terms rights "retained by the people." Indeed, the Ninth flies so far under the radar that it has rarely been mentioned even by the Supreme Court.

What a pity. Even more, what a terrible oversight: the Ninth Amendment bears directly on such modern-day constitutional issues as abortion, the right to die, and gay rights.

The Ninth Amendment is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers thought about the liberties they expected Americans to enjoy under the Constitution. They did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny.

The history of the Constitution reveals the purpose of the Ninth and the Founders' intent: to protect what constitutional lawyers call unenumerated rights -- those rights the Founder assumed and felt no need to specify in the Bill of Rights. Unenumerated rights include, for example, the right to privacy. In the America of today, unenumerated rights account for freedoms like a woman's right to abortion. ...

The truth is that anyone interested in the political and legal issues of the day can and should look to the Ninth Amendment for guidance.

The Ninth Amendment is paired with an almost equally forgotten provision, the Privileges or Immunities Clause (P or I Clause) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which draws from the same intellectual roots. The Ninth Amendment is like the rest of the original Bill of Rights: it speaks only to limits on federal power rather than to the powers of state governments. Limitations on state governments came along later, with the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the Ninth Amendment addresses the federal government; the Fourteenth addresses the states.

The human rights vision that survived the Civil War and was confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment consciously complements that of the Founders. Confronting what these provisions really mean has the potential to reshape the way we think about the Constitution.

In particular, a look at this history helps us address the very controversial question of Supreme Court reliance on foreign law. The Framers thought that fundamental rights were embedded in what they called "the law of nations," and we should follow their lead in seeking inspiration abroad. However, their openness to foreign law is not universally shared today. When Justice Kennedy referred to foreign law in two judicial opinions on the issues of homosexuality and the death penalty, he was subject to an onslaught of criticism from legal commentators. Many of those same commentators question whether the United States is bound by international human rights laws, such as the Geneva Convention's prohibitions on mistreatment of prisoners. ...

Reaction:

This article in particular spoke to me.  It really is true that many people just don't understand that many of our most pivotal issues today deal directly with this amendment, yet the amendment is still ignored.  Even the supreme court rarely deals with this amendment.  We should all remember that the framers intended our rights to extend far beyond what they could put on paper...even though they did a better job of writing things down than I ever could have.

the Eigth Amendment

And so we are up to amendment eight, referred to mostly as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Amendment.  That's the part that most comes into the media spotlight, anyhow.  Certainly cruel and unusual punishment is a very important thing to be protected from, however bail is an important issue as well.  Think about it: if there weren't restrictions on the amount of bail to be set, you could steal a pencil and be held on  $10,000 bail.  Often the simple things that we take for granted have to be the most heavily protected.  One important thing to note is the many court cases that have defined cruel and unusual punishment.  Namely, a punishment does not have to inflict pain in order to be considered cruel.

Video



Response:

Again, a simplistic video.  It is important to consider our history and all the past events that revolve around cruel and unusual punishment.  And thinking about a world without the eighth amendment does invoke some pretty dark ideas.  It's a good thing that the framers kept everything in mind when they put these into place, huh?

Article

Prison Death Case and the Eighth Amendment

Posted: Oct 06, 2009

On August 1, 2004, Micah Burrell died of asthma attack due to deliberate negligence of prison authorities to have him rescued from death. This case of prison death took place in

Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s McConnell Unit. Burrel was alone inside his segregated cell without inhaler. Burrell tried several times calling out for help to his fellow inmates but it took several minutes when a guard showed up. The guard, however, did not pay attention to the serious case of Burrell. Instead of rushing Burrell to the hospital, the guard left him there in his cell struggling for breath for forty minutes. Six more guards and a prison nurse went in his cell but they did not rescue him from death.

Furthermore, according to Scott Medlock, prisoner-rights lawyer, the guards just stood and mocked Burrell accusing him of “faking” the attack while the nurse told the guards that “no one dies of an asthma attack.” After more than an hour suffering on the floor, however, Burrell was taken to the hospital and was pronounced dead by doctors. What is so disappointing in the Burrell’s case is the fact that he was just months away to being eligible for parole.

Burrell’s death is a case of prison death. It resulted in the State of Texas paying $140,000 settlement to the bereaved family of the victim. His case is an eye-opener in that it prompted regulation on Correctional Managed Health Care.

While it is true that convicted criminals should rightfully pay for the crime they made, it is not lawful if they are forced to serve time at a prison facility that is poorly administered. There are cases in our criminal justice system when a short sentence is turned into death sentence due to poor administration in our prison facilities. The case presented above is an example of poor administration. If Burrell were taken immediately to the hospital he would have survived the asthma attack. Prison deaths in our country usually result from intentional murder by fellow inmates, induced suicide and gross insufficient medical care.

American citizens are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. This is enshrined in our Constitution under the Eighth Amendment. This amendment shields Americans from heinous punishments like torture and grossly disproportionate punishment like death sentence imposed for a minor crime. It is true that when one is convicted criminal, he or she might have given some of his or her basic rights as a citizen. Then again, the Eighth Amendment still protects him or her from heinous punishment like prison death.

As shown by the example above, a prisoner’s bereaved family members may be able to sue the prison or guards that caused the victim’s demise. In order for a prisoner death lawsuit to succeed, a strong case of negligence on the part of the prison officials must be proven. This calls for reputable civil rights lawyer who can help in building a strong case against prison officials. Often, successful prisoner death lawsuit leads to reformation and improvement in a broken prison facility.

Response:

This is a case that truly shows the extent to which the eighth amendment applies.  Many people do not think about how our prisoners get treated.  This group typically includes myself, as I try to stay away from prison.  However, for those on the inside, this amendment is crucial.  Even though many prisoners are in prison for life, it's important to realize that we're supposed to treat them as though they're serving their crime, and not treat them inhumanely.  This is part of the reason why the death penalty often gets called into question.  Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty easy to see why it would be controversial under the eighth amendment.

The Seventh Amendment

Here's another amendment that many of you may not be too familiar with (I sure wasn't).  This amendment basically guarantees that in any case that could deprive you of liberty or property you will always have a jury trial.  The founders basically saw juries as a way of controlling judges.  Juries are less susceptible to forms of coercion as a whole than a single judge is.  One interesting thing, though, is that this is one of the amendments in the bill of rights that has NOT been incorporated to the states.  This means that the states don't necessarily have to follow this rule.

Video



Reaction:

This elaborates (albeit, quite humorously) on the reasons that the seventh amendment was put in the constitution.  It does give some good insight to the oppression that the colonists faced while under the rule of the king.  The judges that they were appointed were always biased, and always ruled out of the king's favor and not their personal rights.  Hence, when we made our own country, we made a point to never let that happen.  Props for the 300 face at the end.  That gave me a good laugh.

Article

Seventh-Amendment Follies 
William Baldwin, 04.11.05, 12:00 AM ET 

A drunk driver doing 60mph rear-ends a Ford Escort, killing the driver of the Escort. A jury, handing down a $27 million verdict for the victim's family, decrees that Ford Motor Co. is 40% responsible for this accident and thus on the hook for the whole award. 

A 17-year-old falls asleep at the wheel, crosses into oncoming traffic and crashes his SUV head-on into a Dodge Caravan. The driver of the Caravan is killed when the passenger behind her, not wearing a seat belt, plows into her seat. The jury delivers a $49 million punitive-damages award against DaimlerChrysler. 

These cases and many more like them are to be found at Overlawyered.com, a collection of tort law absurdities maintained by author and Manhattan Institute fellow Walter Olson. Take a look at the blog and then turn to page 100 to read Daniel Fisher's account of toxic mold litigation. The mold cases center on the scientifically preposterous claim that mold is the cause of many human ailments. Juries rule against mold plaintiffs at least half the time. Still, the mere threat of a jackpot award makes defendants (or their insurers) eager to settle. Similar scientific nonsense was behind the multibillion-dollar breast-implant settlement. 

Often a trial judge or appellate court will reject or reduce a steep verdict. A jury slapped General Motors with a $4.9 billion punitive damage award in a case in which a Malibu was rear-ended by a drunk driver. A judge knocked that down to $1.2 billion. But then, if it's accepted that juries sometimes run off the rails, why vest them with so much power in civil cases? Isn't it time to end this solemn farce? 

Juries are good at deciding whether an eyewitnesses is credible. They are not so good at judging the complex trade-offs in car engineering. They can't handle epidemiology or Bayesian statistics. Because they do not have to concern themselves with the economic consequences, they can be very casual about adding a few zeroes to a judgment when the plaintiff tugs at their heartstrings. 

A proposal: Have judges in civil cases assign to juries narrowly targeted factual questions. Which of these two witnesses is lying? Which of these two drivers is more at fault? Leave the engineering and the economics to judges. 

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to jury trials in federal civil cases. Let's repeal it and anything in state law that looks like it

Response:

Here's an article that offers a different perspective of the 7th amendment.  While I don't support abolishing the amendment, as Baldwin asserts at the end of his article, he does bring up some interesting points about the potential flaws of juries.  It is historically true that many juries often serve very large compensation numbers in certain types of cases (medical malpractice, car companies, insurance companies) almost as if to punish those companies for preconceived notions of wrongdoings.  This is indeed a problem, and is worth looking into finding some sort of fix for, as people who own businesses (and corporations) have rights, as well.

The Sixth Amendment

This amendment relates directly to our criminal justice system and trials.  The language here is all important: speedy and public trials means that the government can't hold you in prison for years before they put you on trial and they also have to try you with open doors.  They can't keep trials secret from the general public.  Impartial juries solidify the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty.  You have to be informed of exactly what you are being charged with, and presented with witnesses against you.  The government can't put you in jail with no witnesses simply because it wants you in jail.  You also have the ability to get your own witnesses and always have the right to counsel.  Lots and lots of important rights here.  These are incredibly important when you are being accused of a crime, and every single person should know them.  These are the rights that keep our court system from abusing its power.  Learn them and never forget them!

Video



Reaction:
While a somewhat short video, this is a clear violation of the right to an impartial jury.  This video makes me wonder how often an event exactly like this occurs inside the courtroom.  The problem is, how do you keep this from actually happening?  As a person accused of a crime, you have no control over how your jury is chosen.  Definitely some food for thought about the justice system

Article

Court Upholds Sixth Amendment Rights 

By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
Monday, March 8, 2004; 1:33 PM

WASHINGTON - The Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant may confront his accusers, and that right means prosecutors can't use a wife's taped statement to police to try to undermine her husband at trial, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The high court sided with a man convicted of assaulting an acquaintance he had accused of trying to rape his wife. Sylvia Crawford did not testify at Michael Crawford's trial, but prosecutors played a tape they claimed showed her story did not match his.

Michael Crawford's lawyers had no opportunity to cross-examine Sylvia Crawford about the tape, a unanimous Supreme Court said.

"That alone is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

All nine justices agreed to throw out Michael Crawford's conviction and return the case to the state court system in Washington. Seven justices also took the unusual step of squarely overruling an earlier case that laid out complex rules for when statements can be used without the opportunity for cross-examination.

The 1980 case has needlessly complicated a fairly straightforward part of the Constitution, Scalia wrote. The Constitution's framers were wary of letting judges have too much power, he added.

"By replacing categorical constitutional guarantees with open-ended balancing tests, we do violence to their design. Vague standards are manipulable," Scalia wrote.

While that "might be a small concern in run-of-the-mill assault prosecutions like this one," the framers had in mind the darker specter of state trials such as Sir Walter Raleigh's in 17th Century England, Scalia wrote.

Raleigh demanded that the judges "call my accuser before my face," but they refused. Raleigh was sentenced to death for treason.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with him.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned the earlier case, and said the majority was complicating, not clarifying, the rules prosecutors should follow.

"The thousands of federal prosecutors and the tens of thousands of state prosecutors need answers as to what beyond the specific kinds of 'testimony' the court lists is covered by the new rule," Rehnquist wrote.

The Crawford case began in 1999, when Crawford and his wife went to find Kenneth Lee at his apartment in Olympia, Wash. The two men argued and fought, and Sylvia Crawford saw what happened. Michael Crawford got a cut on his hand that required 12 stitches to close, and he stabbed Lee in the stomach, seriously wounding him.

The Crawfords fled the apartment and were arrested that night. They both gave statements to police, but only Michael Crawford said he thought he had seen Lee reach for a weapon before he was stabbed.

Sylvia did not testify at her husband's trial because of the law protecting spouses from testifying against one another. Prosecutors used her statement to refute his claim that the stabbing was self-defense. In a closing statement to jurors, a prosecutor called the statement "damning evidence."

The case is Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410.

© 2004 The Associated Press

Reaction:

This case shows how prosecutors can and will try nearly anything to get the conviction they're looking for.  Since there is a law protecting spouses from testifying against one another, the wife could not be confronted as a witness or cross examined, but the prosecution still tried to use a tape of her testimony in court despite that.  Thankfully, the court saw through this and overturned the decision as wrongful.  I really liked how Scalia referred back to the framer's intent with this amendment.  They weren't necessarily concerned with small cases (though it does apply), but rather with cases like Sir Walter Raleigh's, where he was denied witnesses and simply put to death.  

The Fifth Amendment

Here's one that everyone knows: "I plead the Fifth."  This comes directly from the clause in the fifth amendment that states no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.  Meaning:  you don't have to incriminate yourself in anyway. EVER.  This amendment also guarantees a few other rights that are not always as well known as the right to not incriminate yourself.  You will always be tried by a grand jury for a capitcal crime (certain things with the military during times of war change this), you can't be tried twice for the same crime, and the government can't take your property without compensating you.  Again, the roots of this are from the oppression that the framers faced by the british government, where they were denied these rights.

Video



Reaction:

An enlightening homemade video about why not to talk to the police.  Some important information is given here that everyone should know.  I really liked how he emphasized the portion of your Miranda rights where it says "anything you say can and WILL be used against you."  Right there, you see that it doesn't matter what it is you say: I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I don't even know the guy.  It makes no difference what it is that comes out of your mouth, it WILL be used against you in a court of law.  There is justification enough to never speak to the police.  Great video

Article

Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing

By JANIE LORBER

Published: January 20, 2010

WASHINGTON — Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the couple accused of sneaking into President Obama’s first state dinner in November, declined to answer questions posed by lawmakers on Wednesday.

The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. 

Subpoenaed by the House Homeland Security Committee, the panel that oversees the Secret Service, the couple invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as member after member pressed them for details about Nov. 24, the night of the state dinner.

“On advice of counsel, I respectfully invoke my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question,” Mr. and Mrs. Salahi recited more than two dozen times in their first hour or so before the committee.

In what amounted to an all-out public thrashing, lawmakers said the couple’s activities were “an abomination” and “made a mockery” of the country.

“To have engaged in conduct that undercut the seriousness of our role to protect the president as some sort of reality TV stunt is an extraordinary affront to the seriousness of the issues that are before us today,” said Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California. “The Constitution protects fools. It protects stupidity. It protects errant thought.”

Still, the Salahis, who face possible criminal charges as to whether they lied to public officials or trespassed on federal property, remained calm. Outside the committee room, the couple’s lawyer, Stephen A. Best, called the lawmakers’ efforts a “charade,” and said the Salahis had committed no crime.

“They believed 100 percent in their hearts that they were invited” to the dinner, he said. He criticized the committee’s members and said that while there might have been a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding on the part of government officials overseeing the guests’ entry that night, not the Salahis.

A federal grand jury is investigating how the couple got past Secret Service checkpoints, without invitations or background checks, shook hands with Mr. Obama and posed for a photograph with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr..

Reaction:

This was a story that hit media spotlight all across the country.  It also shows the power of the fifth amendment in court.  Both Mr. and Ms. Salahi repeatedly stated that they did not have to answer questions when faced with a barrage of them.  And quite simply, they didn't have to.  This is the importance of the fifth amendment.  It doesn't matter how badly someone badgers you or tries to manipulate you, you simply don't have to talk.  While I've personally never had a situation where I've had to use the fifth amendment, I know that given the right circumstances, I surely would.  I hope you would, too.

The Fourth Amendment

Here's an amendment that is packed full of protections, as well as controversy.  This amendment protects people, their houses, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, unless a warrant is issued via probable cause to search and/or seize.  The grey area lies in the terms "unreasonable" and "probable cause". The problem with these terms is that they are not defined by this amendment.  What exactly constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure" or "probable cause".  The police tend to try to stretch these vague words to have them encompass nearly anything.  Not to mention, with the implementation of the Patriot Act (which I am strongly against), the federal government was given power to search and seize without warrants whatsoever.  It is quite clear that there needs to be a definition somewhere in the constitution of what "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause" actually are.

Video



Reaction:

This video REALLY upset me.  The simple fact that a man's fourth amendment right was blatantly ignored by a sheriff is disgusting.  The man quite clearly knows his rights under both the Indiana constitution and the United States Constitution and even states the sections where he is entitled those rights.  Personally, I hope two people lost their jobs via this video and I hope that the man sued for as much as he could get.  This just shows how law enforcement tends to treat the fourth amendment rights of american citizens.

Article

The Patriot Act vs. the Constitution

By Katarina Uhalova

The Patriot Act was established after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and its main point was to protect people from terrorism. Specifically, it allows FBI agents to search personal information of people, to read their emails, and listen to their private phone calls. Before the Patriot Act, the agents were not allowed to do this kind of research. They would need to have the permission of a judge.

The Patriot Act breaches the First Amendment, which declares our rights to freedom expression, speech and information. Freedom of information and individual liberty had a tremendous impact on the people in the 20th century, which allowed them to have their perceptions and examine situations from their own point of view. The Fourth Amendment should also protect us from search and seizure. Our society should deny the Patriot Act because it raises controversial issues, such as violating the Constitution and having a tremendous impact on our social lives.

One of the first reasons why the Patriot Act violates the First Amendment rights is because, as it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These words are stated in the Constitution and they should be respected at all times. Evidently, the Patriot Act violates freedom of speech in the way that people are losing the right to say what and how they truly feel. We have to be careful with the use of words about politics or government because we can be prosecuted. To illustrate it another way, the Patriot Act violates the democratic rights of the freedom of political expression. Furthermore, the Patriot Act researches what people are saying, which makes them very careful with their vocabulary and the meaning of words they use. Even though the government cannot deny our rights to react on certain political issues, the Patriot Act restricts what we can say. These important issues bring the Patriot Act into conflict with our constitutional rights and deny us the right to act freely. “The real protection of free expression rights lies not in the words of the First Amendment. Rather, it lies in the people’s willingness to appreciate and support those rights” (Dautrich & Bare, 2005). As the Nieman Reports described, the First Amendment individual liberties are based on the people and they should be able to fight for them. The First Amendment emphasizes very important issues of free speech, free press and free expression, and the Patriot Act in the way of denying people the right to freely act upon governmental and political issues ruins these.

Another way in which The Patriot Act is a controversial issue is the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment in the Constitution of the United States guarantees that: “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.”

The Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment in every point, which should be the concern of every person, because “it violated the Constitution by giving federal authorities unchecked power to obtain the private information” (Swartz, 2004). The Patriot Act allows the federal government to take away the property of a supposed terrorist without notice or the agreement of the judge, even though the person can be innocent. The FBI can search private re c o rds within financial institutions, which are our personal documents and should 13 be protected and not searched by law. They can also look into personal records such as medical, phone, internet, student or library records.

Why is anybody concerned about our favorite books or movies? That should be just our own interest. The Federal Agents do not need to have or show any reasons that a person is engaged in criminal or political activity to search the person. The FBI agents do not need to prove any criminal charges against her/him. Furthermore, a person can be above suspicion. The Fourth Amendment illustrates and gives us examples of the points in which The Patriot Act violates human rights against unreasonable search that are clearly interpreted in the basic law of our state.

In addition, The Patriot Act violates the democratic structure of the state. According to Abraham Lincoln, democratic government should be, “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This description of democracy contains a message for us as human beings. Furthermore, we are people who live in a democratic society, but our rights are tightly controlled by the federal government. The Patriot Act gives the right to access sensitive information about people, which makes it a controversial issue. If this is a democratic society, then we cannot be afraid about what we say, read, or do. The Constitution is the basic law for democracy, and by violating its Amendments with the Patriot Act, we violate democracy.

In the case of personal liberties, such as private phone calls, Olmstead vs. USA alerts us to the fact that the taping of phones should be restricted. This was in the 1920s and it should be upheld in today’s society. “Some of this speech that will be silenced is speech that is important to an open democracy” (Hudson, 2006). Freedom of speech in the phone call portrays an important aspect of the democracy. No matter how technology or society changes, we still should take into account an understanding of Constitutional law. Democracy should protect us from searches of our email or web pages, which the Patriot Act encourages, and guarantee us our private liberties to do what we please. We will always have some limitations but the government (federal agents) should not read our emails or listen to our phone calls. Otherwise, we will need to be very careful with our vocabulary and words. The Founding Fathers established our personal liberties, and democracy represents their basic laws, which are disobeyed by the Patriot Act.

People who disagree might argue that The Patriot Act was not meant to violate the privacy of the people but to protect them from the terrorism. President Bush in a 2005 speech explained that it is to protect the people. He explains, “The Patriot Act is essential to protecting the American people against the terrorists. The Act tore down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence officials so that they can share information and work together to help prevent attacks.” Its intention was good in the beginning before establishing the Patriot Act, but after we examined it in real life, we see that the Patriot Act does not just violate our rights, but also prohibits new ideas. It gives the right to government officials to search financial statements, and library, movie, and business records of private persons. Moreover, the Patriot Act is in conflict with the most important rules of the United States, the Constitution.

In conclusion, The Patriot Act does not just violate the Constitution, but represents the loss of our individual liberties by violating our freedom of speech, information, and expression as stated in the First Amendment and the protection from search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Most serious is that it threatens democracy and gives the FBI uncontrolled power to gain personal information without adequate charges. For all of these reasons we should realize our liberties and fight for them.

Reaction:

Here's the big one: The Patriot Act.  As I stated before, I am strongly against the patriot act in its entirety.  While this article shows that the patriot act violates more than just the fourth amendment, I feel one of the most applicable pieces is it's violation of the fourth amendment.  The patriot act allows the government to completely ignore getting warrants for search and seizure, and basically allows for anything to be considered "probable cause" when we're in times of war.  Granted, the definition of "in times of war" is vague, in that the government claims that we are perpetually in a war against terrorism.  Meaning: because of this act, our fourth amendment rights are ignored perpetually.  The very fact that our government would pass such an act that BLATANTLY violates the constitution makes me lose faith in our government's ability to protect its citizens.  Think what the framer's would say if they read the patriot act.   Needless to say, this act needs to be repealed or overhauled completely.

The Third Amendment

This amendment is one that today most people don't think much of.  However, in order to fully understand the protections of this amendment, we have to take a look once again at the turmoil that this country faced in its early years.  Under British rule, the king's soldiers could literally enter into your home with no advanced warning.  They could kick you out of your beds, eat your food...pretty much do whatever they wanted with your household.  The framers of the constitution wanted to make sure that this never happened with our government.  Like I said, it doesn't seem very applicable on a day-to-day basis, however if we were to be in a time of war, it could apply very much so.

Video



As you can probably tell, I enjoy comical videos.  I found this one to be entertaining, while describing what could potentially happen during a time of war.  When the nutcracker sings about being tired of all the tanks and jeeps outside of his house, and the soldiers that drink all his beer when the party starts, those were things that happened to the colonists.  This goes to show a "worst case scenario" of what could happen during war and exactly why we need the often forgotten third amendment.

Article

Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year

OCTOBER 5, 2007 | ISSUE 46•26 ISSUE 43•40
 08.13.03 The onion

WASHINGTON, DC—The National Anti- Quartering Association, America's foremost Third Amendment rights group, held its annual gala in Washington Monday to honor 191 consecutive years of advocating the protection of private homes and property against the unlawful boarding of military personnel.

"This is a proud day for quarters-owners everywhere," said the organization's president, Charles Davison, in his keynote address. "Year after year, we have sent a loud and clear message to the federal government and to anyone else who would attack our unassailable rights: Hands off our cottages, livery stables, and haylofts."

The NAQA was created in 1816 in response to repeated violations of the Third Amendment during the War of 1812. The organization quickly grew in influence and cites its vigilance as the primary reason why the amendment has only been litigated once in a federal court since the Bill of Rights was ratified. The organization is also arguably the country's most powerful political lobby; every politician elected since 1866 has fully supported Third Amendment rights.

"The framers of the Constitution provided the American people with the right to have their homes free of troops unless Congress mandates otherwise during a time of war," Davison said. "Thanks to our tireless efforts, six generations of civilians have never known the cruelty and duress of quartering unruly foot soldiers."

Davison recalled the "dark days" of 1982, when the federal case of Engblom v. Carey threatened to strip Americans of their fundamental Third Amendment freedoms. The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the State of New York had indeed violated the Third Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The case, according to Davison, was "a chilling reminder of how even an established 200-year-old right hangs by a slender thread."

"I don't think people fully understand how close we came to completely losing such a basic right," Davison said. "If the Second Circuit had ruled otherwise, we'd be living in a world in which soldiers would be quartering amok upon our very hearthstones."

Davison expressed pride in the NAQA's grassroots involvement at the local level, citing the association's direct-mailing campaigns and its fully staffed regional centers where citizens can report Third Amendment rights abuses. The NAQA also holds quartering-safety seminars for citizens interested in learning how to effectively defend their households against U.S. troops seeking shelter.

Davison reiterated the organization's promise to oppose pro-quartering legislation should any ever be proposed.

"Keep the fat hands of soldiers out of America's larders!" Davison said to rousing applause. He was quoting the NAQA's familiar slogan, which can be found on T-shirts, bumper stickers, and other merchandise sold on the group's website.

Davison ended his address by warning of the dangers of the NAQA resting on its laurels.

"Pro-quartering advocates are waiting for just the right moment to stick a bunch of troops in our homes," Davison said. "Well, I say to them that we will never allow this to happen. You can count on the true patriots of the NAQA to ensure that no chickens and livestock will be appropriated, and private stores of salt, brandy, candles, and vinegar will stay firmly where they belong: in civilian hands."

The NAQA is known for its quick and aggressive mobilization when it believes Third Amendment rights are at risk, and has rushed to the defense of homeowners it believes are being illegally coerced into housing American soldiers. Last month, 200 NAQA members marched on a private residence in Fairfax, VA after receiving a tip that the owners were being victimized by three Navy seamen demanding prolonged quartering. They ended their demonstration, however, when it was discovered that the sailors were brothers on shore leave visiting their parents.

Davison, 49, has headed the NAQA since January, replacing longtime president Lawrence Frost. Frost, 58, left the organization to chair the Citizens Committee for the Right to Drink, a 21st Amendment rights group committed to the continued legal status of alcohol for Americans of drinking age.

Reaction

This article actually surprised me.  I had no idea that a National Anti-Quartering Association even existed!  I say more power to them.  To have a group as old as this one (founded in 1816) still around today protecting our right to keep soldiers out of our homes is a refreshing thing.  I also didn't realize that there had been violations of this amendment by our government either, but at the same time I'm not really surprised by that fact, either.  The important thing is our rights are still upheld today, and our homes are soldier-free (unless we say it's okay).

The Second Amendment

This amendment is one of the most highly debated about amendments.  The second amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  When looking at this from the perspective of the framers of the constitution, this was vitally important to America's survival as a new country.  Think about it:  you have a newly established country that just got done fighting a taxing war, and there are already enemies.  Those enemies would be watching like hawks to see any chance of being able to crush the new country.  So it only makes sense that the everyday person should have the right to keep and bear arms.  That way, if someone did try to invade they could protect themselves and put up resistance to the invading force.  Now today, you could argue that we aren't under imminent threat of invasion.  You could also argue that due to increased crime rates based on population expansion, owning a gun is now more important than ever to protect yourself.  Either way, I personally don't see a problem with people owning guns for protection purposes.  You can't stop people from unlawfully using guns.  The only thing you can do is put laws into place to punish those who do.



Reaction:

This video does a good job of explaining the mindset of those who framed the constitution.  I like the fact that it also elaborates on the fact that it was to fight against oppressive government.  It keeps the populace from being taken over by the government, which I feel is crucial to the survival of this country.  If the government takes over, the people eventually have no choice but to start a revolution and overthrow it (as seen over many examples across human history).  If we are forced to overthrow the government, we fall back to page 1 and have to start over.

Article

EDITORIAL

The Second Amendment’s Reach

Published: March 1, 2010

NY Times

Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. On Tuesday, the court will consider whether that decision should apply everywhere in the country, not just in the federal territory of the nation’s capital.

We disagreed strongly with the 2008 decision, which took an expansive and aggressive view of the right to bear arms. But there is an even broader issue at stake in the new case: The Supreme Court’s muddled history in applying the Constitution to states and cities. It should make clear that all of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply everywhere.

McDonald v. Chicago is a challenge to a law that makes it extremely difficult to own a handgun within Chicago’s city limits. The challengers rely on the court’s 5-to-4 ruling in 2008, which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment to carry guns for self-defense. But that decision left open an important question. The Bill of Rights once was largely thought to be a set of limitations on the federal government. Does the right to bear arms apply against city and state governments as well?

Since states and localities do far more gun regulation than the federal government, the court’s answer will have a powerful impact. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, relying on 19th-century precedents, ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and cities.

Under the doctrine of “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court has ruled on a case-by-case basis that most, but so far not quite all, of the Bill of Rights apply to states and cities. The court should dispense with the selectivity and make clear that states and cities must respect the Bill of Rights.

To justify incorporation, the court has relied on the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War to ensure equality for newly freed slaves. The amendment has two relevant clauses: the due process clause that requires government to act with proper respect for the law, and the privileges or immunities clause, which is more focused on protecting substantive individual rights.

The logical part of the amendment to base incorporation on is the privileges or immunities clause, but a terrible 1873 Supreme Court ruling blocked that path and the court has relied since then on the due process clause.

A group of respected constitutional scholars and advocates is asking the court to switch to the privileges or immunities clause as the basis for applying the Bill of Rights to states and cities. That would be truer to the intent of the founders, and it could open the door to a more robust constitutional jurisprudence that would be more protective of individual rights.

It is unlikely that the court will delve directly into the gun issues. If it decides to apply the Second Amendment to cities, it would probably send the case back to a lower court to evaluate the Chicago law. If that happens, the justices should guide the court in a way that makes clear that reasonable gun restrictions will still be upheld.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns.

Reaction:

This article made me think quite a bit.  What I found most interesting was that the supreme court has not yet applied the bill of rights to the states and cities.  I find it quite odd that only "some" of the bill of rights should apply against states and cities (the article states the the rights were originally to protect us from the federal government).  Even though there is a distinction in the constitution that separates the states from the federal government, I believe that states and cities are still part of the government, and should have to respect the bill of rights the same as the federal government does.

The First Amendment

One of the most crucially important amendments to our constitution is without a doubt the First Amendment.  This amendment guarantees that every person of the united states will not be oppressed by the government regarding religion.  The government cannot establish a national religion, nor prohibit you to to practice whatever religion you want.  This amendment also guarantees every person the right to speak their mind (though, there are restrictions), as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government.  These rights alone make our country stand out among other countries.  No other country protects its people's right to speak and believe the way our country does.

Video



Reaction:

This video is quite the comical display of how the first amendment works.  Despite its cheesiness, it does get the point across clearly.  The one thing I found interesting about this video was the initial reaction of the kids in the classroom to their teacher explaining the first amendment.  This reaction is probably not all that uncommon, as many kids don't really care about "learning about the boring constitution."  I remember in my classrooms this was the same.  Government classes were boring, and hard to pay attention to.  I think it should be a challenge to educators to get kids interested in the constitution and let them know they have rights.

Article

Supreme Court overturns anti-animal cruelty law in First Amendment case

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Supreme Court on Tuesday forcefully struck down a federal law aimed at banning depictions of dog fighting and other violence against animals, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and created a "criminal prohibition of alarming breadth."

The 8 to 1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment's protection of even distasteful expression. Roberts called "startling and dangerous" the government's argument that the value of certain categories of speech should be weighed against their societal costs when protecting free speech.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts wrote. "Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The decision was the second major First Amendment ruling of the term, and far more unified than the first. In January, a divided court ruled in Citizens United v.Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions have a right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates.

Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who had filed an amicus brief in the animal cruelty case on behalf of civil libertarians who opposed the law, called it "quite a strong decision" and said it was more evidence of a "court that is moving in the direction of strong enforcement of the First Amendment."

The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos. They appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals -- cats, dogs, monkeys, mice and hamsters, according to Congress -- or showing them being crushed to death by women wearing stiletto heels or with their bare feet. While dog-fighting and other forms of animal cruelty are already illegal, Congress said the legislation was necessary to stop the production of videos for commercial gain.

But the government has not used the law to prosecute any producer of a crush video. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, involves Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit bulls fighting. An appeals court overturned the conviction when it ruled the law was unconstitutional.

Roberts' opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and "other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" might be constitutional.

But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law's exemption for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value" was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government's argument that prosecutions were rare.

"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly," he wrote.Besides, he added, when President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law, he said the Justice Department would limit prosecutions to "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." That was not the case in the Stevens prosecution.

The court has identified only certain categories of speech as outside the First Amendment's protection: obscenity, fraud, incitement, defamation and speech integral to criminal conduct. The last time the court decided speech was so unredeeming it did not deserve such protection was 25 years ago, and the subject was child pornography.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Tuesday's opinion.

He said the law was enacted "not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty." He said that the entire law need not be found unconstitutional, and that the "practical effect" of the ruling would be to spur production of crush videos, which opponents such as the Humane Society of the United States said had decreased with passage of the 1999 law.

Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said his organization was prepared for the court's ruling given the tough questioning of justices at oral arguments last fall. "We're hopeful that a more narrowly tailored law aimed at vicious and illegal acts of cruelty" would pass constitutional muster, he said, adding that work already is underway with supportive members of Congress.

David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, said in a statement that the court rightly decided that if the First Amendment were rewritten "every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn't have any free speech left."

Horowitz -- whose organization represents publishers, booksellers and producers, and retailers of movies, videos and video games -- said that "animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer."

Reaction: 

This article I found to be a good article that shows the protections afforded by the first amendment.  The amendment protects even those who have distasteful opinions on certain issues, which can be hard for some to understand.  I think it is important to teach people that ALL differing opinions are protected under this amendment.  Even radical opinions.  We have to learn to simply accept different and radical opinions in order to all live peacefully together in the same country.