This Amendments states that unless the Federal Government has a law for it, then it is up to the people of the state to decide what laws they want to apply to their people.
The history of the 10th amendment Reserved to the States on Glenn Back May 26, 2009 Fox news
Comment:
I do not know much about Glenn Back, but this video had some good points. The Founding Fathers' did not want a powerful Federal Government. They wanted the states to have their own independent powers. In some situations it made sense to be united for things like National Defense, but not all issues. People and their moral values varies thou out this country, generally speaking a person from Nebraska is different than a person from California and it makes sense for people to make rules that fit their believes.
Sovereignty Under the Tenth Amendment.
Comment:
I think people take pride of their country and they also take pride from the state they come from. When you show your ID and it has the state logo gives you a sense of Local Pride. With a Federal ID gives more sense of a Communist Country.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The bill of rights is not a complete listing of rights that a US citizen has. Just because some rights are not listed in the constitution it does not mean that they not exist.
Judge Michael McConnell speaks about the Ninth Amendment
Annually, the Case School of Law hosts the Sumner Canary Lecture, which is generously endowed by the family of Sumner Canary, a 1927 alumnus of the law school. Judge Canary was appointed to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, where he served from 1967 until his death in 1980. This year's speaker was Judge Michael W. McConnell, who has serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit since 2002. The lecture was given on Oct. 15, and a webcast is available on the law school website.
A graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law (1979), McConnell clerked for the late Justice William Brennan, worked for the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, and was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Since his appointment to the 10th Circuit, he teaches at the University of Utah College of Law, and has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School.
The topic for this year's lecture was "Natural Rights, Enumerated Rights, and the Ninth Amendment." McConnell began with a short history of the Bill of Rights, which became part of the Constitution in 1791. He pointed out that, as Locke and Hobbes explained, "natural rights are rights of persons in 'the state of nature,'" that is, before governments were established. He added, "The Bill doesn't create rights; it recognizes them." Briefly put, natural rights existed before positive or enumerated rights became realities.
But the Founding Fathers had serious doubts about including any list of rights. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 84, an enumeration might be dangerous because any right not included in the list could be presumed not to be protected. McConnell elaborated that "it is simply not possible to make a list of natural rights." Yet the framers of the Constitution agreed that certain rights superseded any formal enumeration.
Their solution to this conundrum was the Ninth Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people." "Others held by the people" refers to natural or retained rights under the Lockean social contract. The statement recognizes that certain rights are implicit in being human. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has shied away from interpreting the Ninth Amendment, and has never stated exactly what rights are retained by the people. Yet the inclusion of this provision in the Bill of Rights underlies the importance of natural rights not enumerated.
McConnell provided additional insights in a later interview. As a legal scholar who has extensively studied the separation of church and state, he explained his neutrality argument concerning religion in public schools. Though generally labeled a conservative, he would oppose an amendment allowing prayer in public schools. The two reasons he gives are that there would be pressure on students to participate in prayer and that such a prayer, composed by an agent of the state, the teacher, would amount to the government instructing students on how to pray. McConnell asserts that public schools should provide accommodations for students that believe in the importance of prayer during the school day, but that the government cannot have a "one-size-fits-all prayer for the entire classroom."
Regarding Roe v. Wade, McConnell thinks that though this case is an important decision whose repercussions are not yet behind us, it should not be "elevated to a litmus test for judges in a way that is inappropriate." McConnell explained that nominees who support abortion rights, or believe that the Constitution does not protect such rights, should not be immediately disqualified.
McConnell suggested that students who want to go to law school consider this career path carefully. "Do something else for a year or two before going to law school," he said. "Find out a little moreabout who you are and what your real interests are before rushing on into three more years of schooling."
This article states the true purpose of the Ninth Amendment. It mentions the Founding Fathers' aprenhation about including a list of rights that a citizen should have and how the Ninth Amendment states that just because the rights weren't specifically included citizens still have them.
The Ninth Amendment
Comment:
Michael Badnarik explains the Ninth Amendment very well. He mention that there was not enough paper to include all the rights that we have. He also mentions that the Ninth Amendment is open to interpretation on what rights we truly have. Just because the Constitution does not say that we have the right to get married and have kids it does not mean that we can not do it. The rights are there they are just not on a piece of paper.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
If a person is charged with an offense that permits that person to be released while awaiting trial, the amount of bail required should be reasonable. This means that the amount should be enough to make it likely that the person will appear in court at the appointed time rather than lose it, but should not be so high that paying it is impossiblee. Cruel AND unusual punishment is forbidden, uunusual punishment is permitted if it is not cruel.
Scalia: Torture is Not Unconstitutional.
Comment I think that Judge Scalia has some good points in this video. He says that punishment and unusual,, but I think torture is still cruel and consider punishment. They pretty much judge because somebody looks "like a terrorist" or was at the wrong place at a wrong time. And whether is punishment or not it is still cruel.
Unthinkable: Movie Trailer
Comment:
This is a difficult one, because it is hard to take a decision when someone tells you that he has set four bombs that will kill thousands of people but he won' tell you where they are. How do get information from him? where do you draw the line? I see what the government was doing here in order to save more lives but how much is enough? Does this really happens in real life? If so, isn't it under the Eighth Amendment not to use cruel and unusual punishment?
"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."
The Seventh Amendment means that if someone steals something that exceeds the value of 20 dollars, (amount that in 2010 is equal to 75000) the person has the right to be judge by a Jury and not just a judge.
Michael Badnarik and the Seventh Amendment
Comment:
All I have to say is that we have the right to defend ourselves. There is a reason why the constitution was made...it clearly states on the Preamble: "We The People" and I don't think its fair that an American can't talk about the constitution in court. We are innocent until we are proven guilty right? I agree with Michael Badnarik in some areas in this video. He is a very outspoken person.
The Seventh Amendment and Medical Malpractice. (Contains some graphic images and may upset some viewers.)
Comment:
If someone does something wrong needs to pay the consequences. What this doctor did to this woman is unbelievable. He needs to go to court and then face the decision that the jury will decide. Most of the times on cases like this the doctor will pay a certain amount to the family but is this really enough? This woman will have scars for the rest of her life and there is no amount of money that will make this any better. And on the other hand this "doctor" will still practice plastic surgeries and who knows he might damage more people.
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.
Its basic purpose is to state the rights of the criminal or accused while he is being prosecuted in the federal court. The sixth amendment grants the person being prosecuted the right to a fair and public trial and a fair and impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed. The accused has also been granted the right to have a counselor and present witnesses in his defense. It also says that the accuser also has the right to present witnesses against the accused.
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.
I see what the court says that a spouse can't testify against the other, but I think further investigation should be realized in this case. The more I learn about the amendment and the more articles I get I see that more and more people get away with crimes because of the Amendments. So this makes me ask..are we really safe? I wonder how many criminals are out there because of them invoking the Amendments?
Video: The Sixth Amendment explained by little kids!
Comment:
I honestly have to say that I loved this video. I really enjoy seen younger kids explaining so well the Amendments. This video was very well explained. The Sixth Amendment gives us the right if we are arrested to get a lawyer, the one that will be provided by the government. It aslo gives us the right to defend oursleves. The only thing is that I think that we should not take advantage of the Amendments and we should be responsible of our acts.
"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"
The Fifth Amendment imposes restrictions on the government's prosecution of persons accused of crimes; mandates due process of law and prohibits self-incrimination, it also states that a person cannot be charged for the same crime twice. It requires just compensation if private property is taken for public use.
Video:Double Jeopardy
This trailer explains the Fifth Amendment. This lady was found guilty of her husband's murdered. When she founds out that he wasn't dead one of her ffriends fro prison tell her that according to the law once she is convicted of a crime, she cannot be convicted again for it. When she found her husband after she got out, she kills him. This is a good example of how the Fifht Amendment works.
White House Crashers Remain Silent
Tareq and Michaele Salahi Invoked the Fifth Amendment in When Questioned by a House Panel
Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the infamous White House party crashers, took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination today, refusing to answer questions from a House committee about how they slipped through Secret Service checkpoints to attend the Nov. 24 White House state dinner.
The couple remained silent in response to a barrage of questions from members of the Homeland Security Committee, with Tareq Salahi pleading the Fifth more than 25 times, and Michaele Salahi invoking it at least five times.
A federal grand jury is investigating the Salahis to learn how they got past the Secret Service without invitations and shook hands with President Obama. The White House incident led to an apology from the U.S. Secret Service, and three Secret Service officers were placed on administrative leave.
In addition to their attendance at the dinner, the couple also declined to answer questions about a recent party in Las Vegas or the Bravo reality TV show they aspired to be part of, "The Real Housewives of D.C."
In his opening statement,Tareq Salahi offered to have the couple's lawyers provide information about their appearance at the dinner for the prime minister of India. Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., rejected the offer.
Tareq Salahi continued, saying, "My wife and I are strong supporters of men and women in uniform both here and abroad. We have great respect for the presidency, the men and women of the United States Secret Service. … They have a tradition of excellence in their missions. And nothing that transpired Nov. 24 should take away from the extraordinary services the United States Secret Service performs on a daily basis."
Several representatives took offense at the statement.
"You have your right to claim protection under the Constitution of the United States, but you have shown affront here, to take the name of men and women in uniform, who are protecting this nation, and suggest that somehow what you do provides support for them," said Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.
"I was going to sit here and remain silent, until I heard that last paragraph of your statement," Lungren continued. "But to suggest that somehow what you are doing shows support for our men and women is an abomination."
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., called today's procedure a "charade."
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said he was originally ambivalent about the hearing and subpoenaing the Salahis, but said their "ill-advised" appeal compelled him to speak, adding that the time for the hearing would have been better devoted to talking about important national issues, such as unemployment.
'The Constitution Protects Fools'
The Salahis have insisted that they were invited to the Nov. 24 state dinner, and in December they warned through their lawyer that they would exercise their Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions, and that the House Homeland Security Committee should not summon them.
Stephen Best, the couple's lawyer, said in an interview Tuesday that a grand jury is still hearing witnesses.
It is funny to me how these people who actually committed an illegal act they can be protected by the Fifth Amendment. This couple committed a "crime" and they should be responsible for it. I cannot believe that this people got away with it. They are very smart. They fooled the Intelligence Service! and their act apparently did not have consequences.
The Fourth Amendment, establishes that all the people, should be safe at their home or any other property that they own. Government cannot realize unlawful searches in one persons properties, unless the person is suspect of a crime or having something illegal, then a search can take place.
Violation of The Fourth Amendment
This video shows how the police can abuse their authority by trying to search this guy's car and arrest him without a warrant. I was surprised when I saw the video on how the police tried to make up things against the guy in the car. I completely agreed with him on having the police to respect his rights. What I thought it was even worst, was when the police told him that according to the Fourth Amendment they can search they car, but he never said that they thought that the guy was suspicious of a crime, or even worse they did not have a warrant.
Andy Griffith and the Fourth Amendment
We all have the right to privacy. I understand that the country was scared after what happened on 9/11 and the constitution was changed temporarily, but it is time for things to back to normal. Other people should not be allowed to listen to our conversations unless we are under investigation of a crime just like the Fourth Amendment is established. This video is a good example of how other people and the government should respect or privacy.
"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."
The Third Amendment prohibits soldiers to go into a house during time of peace. The only time this would be allowed is on time of war and if directed by the government. And I have to say that I completely agree, it is not right for anyone who go into your property with out your consent, even if it is someone from the government. Your house is your house, and no one should go in there with out your approval.
The Third Amendment
This video explains what the third amendment is all about. It is nice to see how young people care about the constitution, how well they understand it. They are the future of the country and as long as they know what the Bill of Rights is all about we can say that this country has a good future.
Another video explaning the Third Amendment
This video explains the Third Amendment very good. This guy has a good point. In this time it is not very likely to have the military invade our property but it is more likely to see the military getting drunk at a bar and causing conflict and it is not right for them to cause problems. The military should not take advantage of who they are.
