Tenth Amendment

The tenth amendment states...
      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.


What it means to me...
      This amendment does not hold as much power as it used to because when it was originally proposed, the
Bill of Rights only pertained to federal law, not the states. And many states had slavery,. which was protected by this amendment. Thus, the fourteenth amendment was put into place to make it so that the Bill of Rights applied to both state and federal law, making this amendment less meaningful.

The following is a video about the tenth amendment...

This is a video about Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer and his rally for sovereignty under the 10th amendment. On March 16, 2009, Rohrer introduced a tenth amendment resolution with overwhelming support. Rohrer and his supporters organized a day-long rally entitled "Mobilize for Liberty", which included seminars and speeches. 

The following is another video about federal states and the tenth amendment...

This video summarizes that The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefits of the States or state government as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the states. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself, but rather federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from sovereign power.

Ninth Amendment

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


What it means to me...
      This amendment was written to address the concern that the government was free to violate any rights that were not specifically protected in the Constitution.

The following is a video about the ninth amendment and our enumerated rights...

      This is a video that discusses an interview between Donald Trump and NBC's Savannah Guthrie. In the interview, she asks Trump a question about abortion and privacy and he responds with a very uneducated answer. This not only made both Trump and Guthrie look bad, but the poor phrasing of the question fundamentally misconstrued the US constitution.

The following video is a Public Service Announcement take on the ninth amendment...

This video shows students depicting how we have more right than just those listed directly in the Constitution.

Eighth Amendment

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


What it means to me...
      This amendment helps restrict bail, prison sentences, fines, and the death penalty when it comes to criminals. Bail is crucial because defendants who are not released on bail have greater difficulty preparing their defense. It also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, states that excessive fines can not be put on defendants since most if not all convicts are poor, and prohibits the torture of US citizens.

The following is a video that depicts what our life would be without the 8th amendment...

This video illustrates a day in the life of someone without the 8th amenment. It would be pretty extreme.

The following is another video that focuses on cruel and unusual punishment...

These series of images are examples to show just how unjust forms of cruel and unusual punishment are and how nobody, no matter how serious of a crime that they commit, should be put through that kind of torture. It's just inhumane.

Seventh Amendment

The seventh amendment states...
      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.


What it means to me...
      This amendment basically requires a trial by jury in lawsuits where ordinary damages are sought. However, a jury is not required in family cases, such as those dealing with divorce or child custody.

The following is a political cartoon...

This cartoon is joking about how people hate the fact that they are often required to do jury duty. It may be a pain, but we need juries to hear our cases.

The following is a website blog about the seventh amendment... 

This newspaper article talks about how the Supreme Court was upholding the High Court verdict declaring that the 7th amendment was now void. The military rule of HM Ershad stands illegitimate as the Supreme Court upheld the High Court verdict in May 2011 that had declared the seventh amendment to the constitution void, since they had approved the regime illegal. 

Sixth Amendment

The sixth amendment states...
      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial 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 accusations; 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 defense.


What it means to me...
      Basically, the accused have the right to a speedy trial. This clause prevents long-term incarceration without a trial-a person cannot have a prison sentence without a guilty verdict. The innocent should not have to sit in jail for years if they are in fact innocent of their accused criminal act.

The following is a video for a class project done by kids to illustrate the sixth amendment...

This video uses an example of a girl going to jail for stealing a dog, even though she is innocent. It is a reenactment of how simple innocent people can be put in jail whether they did anything wrong or not. Without the sixth amendment, those innocent people would sit in jail for long periods of time because there are so many court cases to hear. This amendment gives them the right to a quick trial so they don't have to rot in jail for something they truly did not do.

The following is a political cartoon...

Here the artist is using a turtle to illustrate the fact that turtles are naturally slow-moving animals and therefore he is waving his right to a "speedy" trial.

Fifth Amendment

The fifth amendment states...
      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 offense 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.


What it means to me...
      This amendment helps to protect us from the abuse of government authority in legal procedures, such as trials by jury. No person can be tried for a serious crime, except in a military setting, without written accusation from a Grand Jury first. Also, this amendment states that we have property rights that cannot be taken away, specifically by the government. This is known as the takings clause.

The following is a video relating to our rights given to us by the 5th amendment...

  In this video, Stewart Parnell, owner of the Peanut Corp. of America, pleads the 5th amendment and thus refuses to answer any questions directed to him and his colleague during a House Energy & Commerce Commitee hearing on the nationwide salmonella outbreak. Basically, every question that is directed at him he refuses to answer at risk of exposing his company and revealing to the media they actually did ship products that were made with ingredients that were contaminated with the salmonella virus.

The following is a political cartoon illustrating the fifth amendment...

This cartoon illustrates how we as Americans cannot be forced to answer to higher figures, such as Government or, as seen in the cartoon above, teachers. The boy is asking if the fifth amendment applies to report cards, and if he has the right to not have to show his report card, which we assume is not very good, to anyone, especially his teachers, principal, and parents.

Fourth Amendment

The fourth amendment states...
      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.


What it means to me...
      This amendment helps protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. Basically, the police cannot enter your home without a warrant and cannot search your person or belongings without a reason to believe they will find something illegal.

The following is a video regarding unreasonable searches and seizures...

This video illustrates how important the fourth amendment is to us as Americans. In the video, a man named Ben Masel hands out t-shirts that say, "Just Say No to Unreasonable Search and Seizure" at the Albuquerque, NM Amtrak Station. He does this in an effort to shine a light on  the Amtrak, which provides DEA with info on passengers, who report unwarranted harassment.

The following video is about police ignoring our fourth amendment rights.

  Boston Police are preparing to go into the city's neighborhoods and knock on the doors of private homes and can search children's bedrooms without a warrant looking for illegal guns in the hands of kids. This is being called The Safe Homes program but many people feel that this is not safe and that it is a violation of our rights given to us in the fourth amendment. The cops cannot be trusted although parents can deny allowing them into their home. There is much controversy surrounding this new program and many are either for or against this. Those who are for it believe they are doing this for the good of the people and are just trying to make the streets safer and get dangerous guns out of the hands of juveniles.

Third Amendment

The third amendment states...
    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.


What it means to me...
    The third amendment basically prevents the government from quartering soldiers in civilian homes during time of peace, unless given consent from the individual. It is very important because it offered protection as well as privacy rights to soldiers from government intrusion. This is also known as inferred privacy.


The following is an excerpt from an article about quartering soldiers...
___________________________________________________________
The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History
   by WILLIAM S. FIELDS* and DAVID T. HARDY**

1. Introduction 

The third amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o 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."[1] Among the legal protections set forth in the American Bill of Rights,[2] few have been relegated to more obscurity.[Page 394] For almost two hundred years, now, it has gone virtually unnoticed. No Supreme Court case has ever directly interpreted the amendment, although several opinions, most notably the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, mention it in passing as one aspect of the right to privacy.[3] Complaints arising under the amendment have been urged in a handful of lower court cases, but most of them have been summarily dismissed as farfetched assertions.[4] In only one instance, the 1982 case of Engblom v. Carey, has a lower court ever been asked to directly apply the amendment in a meaningful context requiring an interpretation of its quartering provisions.[5]

Although the third amendment is today widely taken for granted, to many in the revolutionary generation, its protections were a matter of great importance. The grievance, which the amendment sought to [Page 395] address, the abuses of persons and property resulting from the involuntary quartering of soldiers was one of the major problems associated with the presence of British soldiers in the colonies prior to and during the Revolutionary War. The presence of those soldiers as a group was itself the basis of the larger political grievance and root cause of the Revolution¾the maintenance of "standing armies" in peacetime without the consent of the colonial legislatures. Unlike the other problems attributed to the presence of British soldiers, however, the quartering problem was by its history and nature so intimately connected with the larger political issue of the "standing army," that in the end, the successful resolution of that larger issue for practical purposes rendered superfluous the protections which came to be embodied within the third amendment.
The grievances relating to the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies were the products of a common experience. Their origins and development paralleled; and at crucial junctures in both English and American history they became so closely linked so as to be almost indistinguishable. Yet, throughout their history each of the grievances maintained a separate legal identity; each was addressed in different ways within the United States Constitution; and the solution to the problems of each to a great extent reflected different ideological, historical, and practical considerations. 

2. Early Attempts to Regulate Quartering

   The earliest efforts to curb the abuses relating to the involuntary quartering of soldiers appeared in the charters of towns and boroughs. Examples of those early enactments included Henry I's London Charter of 1130, which contained the passage "[l]et no one be billeted within the walls of the city, either of my household, or by force of anyone else,"[23] and Henry II's London Charter of 1155, which provided "that within the walls no one shall be forcibly billeted, or by the assignment of the marshall."[24] Some of those documents appeared before the Magna Carta, which contained no specific reference to quartering, but did reaffirm the "ancient liberties and free customs" of London and the other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports; seemingly incorporating their provisions by reference.[25] Those charters were the major legal antecedents of the third amendment. [Page 400]
Under the provisions in the early charters, the authority to admit soldiers into the city, and to determine where and in what number they would be lodged, was typically vested in town marshals or constables who were prohibited by their terms from quartering soldiers in a dwelling without the consent of the owner. Soldiers lodged by consent in civilian homes were supposed to pay for anything they took; payment usually being in the form of chits, tallies, or billets that could be redeemed from the government or used in the payment of taxes. The receipts given by the soldiers, however, often proved worthless and the legal prohibitions against involuntary quartering were continually violated.[26] Further, the legal restraints found in the charters were only applicable within their respective locales; ran only to the owners of property; and did not extend protection to the countryside.[27] In an era of limited expectations in privacy, they were more in the nature of a personal right in property, designed to protect and compensate the growing and increasingly influential commercial class of the cities, towns and ports.

During the middle Ages, the manner of organizing, feeding, lodging, and disciplining soldiers suffered from a lack of centralized control; barracks for example were almost nonexistent. Until those problems were solved in a way satisfactory to the general population, legal restraints on involuntary quartering alone, would not prove adequate to remedy the problem.

3. The Linkage of the Quartering Grievance with the Political                                                          Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies

Under the influence of the Duke of Buckingham, Charles I had become involved in wasteful wars on the continent against France and Spain. As in the past, professional soldiers were utilized in these conflicts and, as was all too common in the English experience, there were [Page 403] allegations of mistreatment of citizens by the soldiers as they traveled to their passages across the channel.[39] Parliament, which was deeply distrustful of Buckingham and his policies, balked at subsidizing Charles' military ventures. With the king and parliament deadlocked over the issues of taxation and appropriations, large numbers of soldiers found themselves without barracks or money to pay for billeting in inns; and many were left with no choice but to seek quarters in private homes.[40] The popular dissatisfaction which resulted under those circumstances found expression in the Petition of Right presented to the king by the Lords and Commons of Parliament in 1628. Prominent in the Petition was the grievance,

whereas of late, great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants, against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people.

. . . .

. . . and that your majesty would be pleased to remove said soldiers and manners; and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come.[41]

   Although the problem of quartering was essentially an undesirable byproduct of the more fundamental political issue of the king's maintenance of a standing army without parliament's consent, the Petition defined the grievance with a legal identity of its own, and in doing so, its guarantees became an enduring part of the English constitution.
   Charles' disputes with parliament continued as he attempted to raise revenues without parliamentary authority, through such means as the exacting of customs duties known as tonnage and poundage, the reviving of feudal rights, the granting of "patents," and the extension to inland counties of the infamous tax known as "ship money."[42] Eventually the situation evolved into civil war in 1642, with the issue of control of the militia serving as the catalyst.[43] In the ensuing conflict both sides relied upon the use of standing armies; both of which on occasion demanded free quarters and abused the civilian population. Sir Thomas Fairfax, a parliamentary leader, noted of his opponents that:

[they] are extremely outragious in plundering . . . puting no deferanc at all betweene friends and supposed enemis . . . taken al that hath been usefull [Page 404] for them and ript up featherbeds and throwne the feathers in the wind to be blowen away for sport and scaned all the barrels of beere and wine and spilt it in their sillers. They have kid of one mans 1,000 cheese and throwne away much of it they could not ate, many other outrages they commit to large express this way . . .[44]

   The end result of the war was a military dictatorship which furthered the popular aversion to the army.[45] The dictatorship ended in turn with the 1660 restoration of Charles II who restored only a limited royalist militia backed by a standing army.[46] However, trouble between soldiers and the civilian population again erupted during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, and the issue of quartering continued to be a problem even though the era saw such improvements as the abolition of the system of military purveyance;[47] the extensive use of tents as a means of sheltering troops; the construction of a few hospitals and barracks; and increased sophistication in military training and organization.

                                                     <http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy2.html>

__________________________________________________________

   This article talks about the history of the involuntary quartering of soldiers and how it was a major problem associated with the presence of British soldiers during the Revolutionary War. The article also states that no Supreme Court case has ever directly interpreted this amendment and the right to privacy, and that there are many grievances against involuntary quartering and the maintenance of standing armies.


The following is the link to a court case that involved the third amendment...


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=965338n
(double-click the entire link and right click, select "Go to http://www.cbsnews..."


The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the meaning of the third amendment. However, in the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court cited the third amendment as one part of the Bill of Rights that evidences "zones of privacy" and a constitutional right to privacy. In this case, the court held that Connecticut could not outlaw the use of birth control by married couples. The court explained that the right to privacy was inherent in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and that states must honor it. 


  

Second Amendment

The second amendment states...
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What it means to me...
      Basically, this amendment means that people have the right to own a gun and keep it in their possession. This right to bear arms is very controversial and has caused quite a stir in politics, as well as society in general. People are either 100% for it or 100% against it. Many say that the amendment protects only the right to have state militias-today's National Guard-while others point to it as guaranteeing individuals the right to keep arms for their own self-defense. Personally, I think that people should not have the freedom of owning a gun because many who have one don't use it for the right reasons. Without guns, crime would go down dramatically. People who are for it argue that people have the right to protect themselves. But if nobody had a gun, then nobody would have to protect themselves from others with guns. People should not have to resort to using guns on others to get their points across. It's like taking the easy way out.


The following is an article about gun control...
______________________________________________________________
Law Would Shield Gun Makers from Lawsuits
Could not be sued for illegal actions of gun owners
By Robert Longley

A bill sponsored by NRA board member and U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would effectively ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers when their products are used in the commission of crimes.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S.397), would prohibit civil lawsuits from being filed against manufacturers or sellers of firearms, ammunition, or components of a firearm for damages resulting from the "criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm." Lawsuits would still be allowed in cases:

  where firearms are transferred with the knowledge that they will be used in the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking,

  where federal or state laws were violated in the transfer of the firearms,

  cases of breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the firearm, or

  cases of death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the firearm when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce has garnered 56 additional co-sponsors in the Senate, including some key democrats. The bill has passed the House in the two previous sessions of Congress and is expected to do so again this session.

Republican Senators actually killed the bill in the last session, after pro gun control Senators attached amendments to it, including an extension of the now defunct ban on assault rifles and the closing of the gun show loophole.

The bill is supported by the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade lobby representing gun makers.

Opponents fear the bill would both immunize the gun industry against negligence-based lawsuits and prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from acting against so-called "rouge" gun dealers.

The bill is intended to address a growing number of active and pending lawsuits brought by individuals and cities against gun makers whose products were used in the commission of violent crimes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/gunmakerbill.htm

____________________________________________________________
This article basically states that the National Rifle Assoc. (NRA) sponsored a bill back in 2005 which would eliminate lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers after their products were used in a criminal act. If an individual misuses a firearm, or other type of ammunition, then no lawsuit can be made to the gun manufacturers or sellers. However, there are still some exceptions for example: if the gun is sold knowing it would be used in a criminal act, if the gun is sold illegally or without proper permits, or if death or property damage occurs due to a defect in the design of the firearm. If any of these occur, then a lawsuit may be filed against the manufacturer or distributor. This lawsuit will help to reduce the number of lawsuits filed from individuals and cities just because the gun was used in a crime. Its not the manufacturer's fault that their product got put into the wrong hands.   


The following are two political cartoons about the right to bear arms...

This political cartoon illustrates why there is such a controversial view on this amendment. Some think that guns are more negative than positive, while others believe guns are a necessity to our society. You always hear the saying, 'Guns don't kill people-people kill people.' Just because guns often fall into the wrong hands, that doesn't mean all guns result in a crime or act of violence.

This cartoon illustrates the same idea, that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Members of the National Rifle Assoc. (NRA) are often people who think that guns are very positive. But those who think guns are negative view the members of the NRA as "lunatics with a gun" and that because people have guns, they kill people. Without guns, they would not have done anything wrong.