"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.
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.
The Second Amendment approves the use and/or possession of an arm by any individual if this is used for the protection of their houses or land, and it also states that the military should only be allow to use arms when protecting the Country.
Gun Control
Jay Paul
Updated June 28, 2010 Recent battles have taken place in the courts, revolving around fundamentally differing interpretations of the oddly punctuated, often-debated Second Amendment, which reads: "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." On June 28, 2010, the court ruled in another 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the riht to keep and bear arms." The case involved a challenge to Chicago's gun control law, regarded as among the strictest in the nation. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The McDonald v. Chicagoruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection. A 1939 decision by the Supreme Court suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the Second Amendment right should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The "collective rights'' interpretation of the amendment became the dominant one, and formed the basis for the many laws restricting firearm ownership passed in the decades since. But many conservatives, and in recent years even some liberal legal scholars, have argued in favor of an "individual rights'' interpretation that would severely limit government's ability to regulate gun ownership. In May 2009, President Obama signed into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons. The amendment was added to a consumer-friendly credit card measure that the president has said is important. The provision represents a Congressional victory that eluded gun rights advocates undera Republican president. But in July 2009, the Senate turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states. When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition. But Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past. And, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.
Personally I do not like arms, one reason why I don't like them is because it kills me to hear on the news that a child was playing with a gun that was in the house and either kill him/her self or shoot a friend. And this is all because of irresponsible people, who think they can have a gun but really they can't. I agree that we should be able to defend ourselves from all those weird people out there, but it makes me wonder, is caring a gun the best way? I see the point of the people in the office some of them saying that is ok to carry gun and some other that is not, but I guess it is all up to the people carrying the guns. Ted Nugent on the second Amendment
I agree he is weird, but yes he also has a good point, for more than I do not like arms, we have to be able to protect ourselves, I think we just need to ask the government to be more concern on who is able to purchase guns and maybe the crime level will be less.
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.
For me the first amendment is the most important of the constitution, because it talks about the freedom of speech, that all of us are free to express our self's, our believes and also our religion. That we are not forced to follow a certain religion. This amendment also says that church and the state should be separated.
Mr. Jones, the Koran and the First Amendment
Plans by a Florida fruitcake named Terry Jones to burn the holy book of Islam, the Koran, and the media coverage of the non-event, triggered widespread and sometimes violent demonstrations in Afghanistan. At least one person was killed, shot to death by perhaps Afghan security forces. Jones had earlier canceled his book-burning event, but only after a statement by the President of the United States and a direct plea by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who should not have had to waste his time pleading with a little loony-tune who calls himself a Christian preacher. The cancellation - or maybe it was just a postponement - failed to halt the demonstrations in Afghanistan, where Jones's incendiary plans had placed U.S. and other coalition forces at grave risk. What Jones has been threatening to do - burn a copy of the Koran - was willfully stupid but would not be illegal in the U.S., where the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects such acts as free speech. Remember when Vietnam War protesters burned American flags? That was protected speech as well. So was the Dutch cartoon that depicted the Prophet Muhammed as a bombhead, although its publication, along with eleven other similar depictions of Muhammed, ignited rioting worldwide that led to an estimated 100 deaths. German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week was somehow able to condemn one form of free speech -Koran-burning - while applauding the Dutch cartoonist. All this has raised questions about the First Amendment and about the responsibility of the mass media, as well as about the blind intolerance of some Muslims. Polls in the past have found that many Americans would repeal the First Amendment if given the chance, which shows that they do not understand it. In addition to making the press the only constitutionally protected form of free enterprise (thus creating the so-called Fourth Estate), the First Amendment also protects our right to assemble peaceably, our right to petition the government, and our freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. In addition to allowing Terry Jones to burn a book, the First Amendment protects the rantings of the Limbaughs and Becks and the biases of Faux News. Let's be clear: you cannot have a democracy without free speech and a free press. If there were no First Amendment, only the speech of the political party in power would be protected. But let's be equally clear about the responsibility of citizens vis-à-vis the First Amendment: the right of free speech is a very great power, and if used irresponsibly, as Jones proposed to do, it can undermine democracy. But what about the mass media, who made little tiny Terry Jones and his little tiny band of likeminded (meaning "mindless") followers into front page news around the globe? True, they have the freedom to print, broadcast, Tweet, email, blog whatever they choose, but where's the sense of proportion? Terry Jones doesn't represent America - or at least he didn't until his stupidity was magnified by media coverage. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, in their excellent little book The Elements of Journalism (Crown Publishers) address just this type of issue in a chapter titled, "Make the News Comprehensive and Proportional." It's proportionality that got way out of whack in the Terry Jones story. Kovach and Rosenstiel compare sensationalism in the news to the early mapmakers who exaggerated the importance of their own countries: Journalists who devote far more time and space to a sensational trial or celebrity scandal than they know it deserves - because they think it will sell - are like the cartographers who drew England or Spain the size of Greenland because it was popular. It may make short-term economic sense but it misleads the traveler and eventually destroys the credibility of the mapmaker. Terry Jones should have had more sense. The news media should have treated him as the mosquito he is. The Muslims who riot in response to free speech should say hello to the 21st century and recognize the rights and freedoms of democratic countries. And we should all defend our own democracy by exercising our First Amendment rights - and responsibilities
When I read this article it made me so mad to think that there is people out there who wants to do this kind of things as a symbol of protest. I am a very catholic person and if someone comes and tells me that they want to burn the bible because for something that other catholics did I would be ofended. Yes the people who attacked New York were Muslims, but this does not mean that all Muslims are bad. This man Terry Jones should be ashamed of him self, who does he think he is to have the right to burn the Koran? However I understand that under the first amendment he can do this, but I don't think he would like if someone comes and burn the bible. We have to respect other if we want to be respected.
Trace Adkins and the First Amendment
We can say what we want but we will have to face the consequences. We are responsible of our acts, and we can not scape from them.
