The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Proposed after the battle of 1787-88 which is often bitter over the ratification of the US Constitution, and made to overcome objections filed by the Anti-Federalists, the amendments to the bill add to the Constitution a special guarantee of personal freedom and rights, clear restrictions on government power in judicial and other proceedings , and an explicit declaration that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for states or peoples. The concepts codified in this amendment are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, together with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). In practice, such amendments have little impact on judgment by courts for the first 150 years after ratification.
On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison introduced nine amendments to the Constitution in the House of Representatives. Among his recommendations, Madison proposes to open the Constitution and include certain rights that limit the powers of Congress in Article One, Section 9. Seven of these restrictions will be part of the ten amendments to the ratified bill. Finally, on September 25, 1789, Congress approved twelve articles of the Constitutional amendment, each consisting of one paragraph one sentence, and submitting it to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's original suggestion that the articles were incorporated into the main body of the Constitution, they were proposed as additional codicils for him. Articles Three to Twelve were ratified in addition to the Constitution of 15 December 1791, and became the First Amendment to the Ten Constitutions. Article Two became part of the Constitution on 5 May 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is technically still waiting before the states.
Although proposed changes to Madison include provisions to extend the protection of some Bill of Rights to states, the amendments that are finally submitted for ratification apply only to the federal government. The doors to their application to the state government opened in the 1860s, following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the beginning of the 20th century, both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. This process is known as merging.
There are original copies of the original Bill of Rights. One is on permanent public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
Video United States Bill of Rights
​​â € <â €
Philadelphia Convention
Prior to the ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution, thirteen sovereign states followed the Confederate Budget, created by the Second Continental Congress and enacted in 1781. However, national governments operating under the Confederate Budget were too weak to be adequate. regulate the conflicts that arise among the states. The Philadelphia Convention aims to remedy the weakness of the obvious Articles even before the American Revolutionary War has been concluded.
The convention took place from 14 May to 17 September 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the Convention is supposedly meant only to revise the Articles, the intentions of many of its supporters, especially among them James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, are to create a new government rather than repair existing ones. The convention was held at the Pennsylvania State House, and George Washington of Virginia was unanimously elected president of the convention. The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution were among the people known as the Founding Fathers of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, who was the French Minister during the service, characterized the delegates as a collection of "half-gods". Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention.
On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution based on earlier state statements, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal movement. However, the movement was defeated by the unanimous vote of the state delegation after only a brief discussion. Madison, who later became a counterpart to the Bill of Rights, then explained the vote by calling the state rights bill "parchment parchments" that offered only the illusion of protection against tyranny. Another delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the person would be dangerous, since that would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned do not exist; Hamilton echoed this point within Federalist . 84. Since Masons and Gerry have emerged as opposed to the proposed new Constitution, their movement - introduced five days before the end of the convention - may have also been seen by other delegates as a delay tactic. The rapid denial of this movement, however, then jeopardized the entire process of ratification. Writer David O. Stewart characterizes the negligence of the Bill of Rights in the early Constitution as "the first major political blunder" while historian Jack N. Rakove calls it "a serious miscalculation by the drafter as they look forward to the struggle over ratification".
Thirty-nine delegates signed the completed Constitution. Thirteen delegates left before completion, and three remained at the convention until finally refused to sign it: Mason, Gerry, and Edmund Randolph from Virginia. Thereafter, the Constitution is presented to the Confederation Congress of Articles with a request that it be subsequently submitted to the delegation's convention, elected in each State by the people, for their consent and ratification.
Anti-Federalis
Following the Philadelphia Convention, several prominent revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee openly opposed the new governmental framework, a position known as "Anti-Federalism". Elbridge Gerry wrote the most popular Anti-Federalist tract, "Hon. Mr. Gerry's Objections", which printed 46 prints; essays mainly focused on the absence of a draft law on the rights in the proposed constitution. Many are concerned that a strong national government is a threat to individual rights and that the president will be king. Jefferson writes to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half bread is better than no bread, and if we can not secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." Anti-Federalist "Brutus" the pseudonym wrote,
We found them, in the ninth section of the first article, that the habeas corpus order would not be suspended except in the case of rebellion - that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, should be passed - that no title of nobleman would provided by the United States, etc. If every thing that is not given is protected, what decency is there in this exception? Does this Constitution everywhere provide the power to suspend habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, authorize bills for achievement, or give royal titles? That is of course not in clear terms. The only answer that can be given is, that this is implied in the general power given. With the same truth it can be said that all powers billed by the bill of rights of protection against abuse are contained or implied in the general given by this Constitution.
He continues with this observation:
Should there be no government, given such a vast and unlimited power, to be limited by the declaration of rights? It definitely should be. So the obvious thing is this, that I can not help to suspect those who seek to persuade people that such reservations are less necessary under this Constitution than under the States, deliberately trying to deceive, and to guide you into the absolute state of vassalage.
The Federalists
Proponents of the Constitution, known as the Federalists, are opposed to the right legislation for most of the ratification period, partly because of the procedural uncertainty it will make. Madison opposes such inclusion, pointing out that the state government is the guarantor of sufficient personal freedom, in No. 46 from The Federalist Papers , a series of essays promoting Federalist positions. Hamilton opposes the rights bill in The Federalist No. 84 , states that "the constitution itself in every rational sense, and for every useful purpose, the bill of rights." He states that ratification does not mean the American people give up their rights, make the protection unnecessary: ​​"Here, in steadfastness, people do not give up anything, and because they defend everything, they do not need special reservations." Patrick Henry criticizes the Federalist's point of view, writing that the legislature should be well informed "about the extent to which rights are defended by the people... in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than surrender power by implication." Other anti-Federalists point out that previous political documents, especially Magna Carta, have protected certain rights. In response, Hamilton argues that the Constitution is inherently different:
The claim of rights is in the country of origin, the provision between the king and his people, the abandonment of prerogatives for the privilege, the order of rights not to be handed over to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, acquired by Baron, the sword in hand, from King John.
Massachusetts Compromise
In December 1787 and January 1788, five states - Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut - ratified the Constitution with relative ease, although a bitter minority report from the opposition in Pennsylvania was widely circulated. Unlike his predecessor, the Massachusetts convention is angry and controversial, at one point erupts into a fistfight between Federalist delegates Francis Dana and Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry when the latter is not allowed to speak. The deadlock was solved only when the revolutionary heroes and anti-federalist leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratify it on condition that the convention also proposed amendments. The proposed amendments to the Convention include a requirement for grand jury indictments in cases of capital, which will form part of the Fifth Amendment, and a reserve amendment of force to states not expressly granted to the federal government, which will then form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.
Following in Massachusetts's footsteps, the Federalist minority in Virginia and New York was able to obtain ratification at the convention by linking ratification with the recommended amendments. A Virginia convention committee headed by law professor George Wythe proposed the recommended forty amendments to Congress, twenty of which mention individual rights and twenty others who state the rights of the state. The latter amendments include restrictions on federal power to levy taxes and regulate trade.
A small number of critics of the Constitution, such as Maryland Luther Martin, continue to oppose ratification. However, Martin's allies, such as John Lansing, Jr., of New York, dropped steps to block the process of the Convention. They began excluding the Constitution "as is," seeking amendments. Some conventions see supporters for "previous amendments" shifting to "post-amendment" positions for residence in the Union. New Anti-Federalist "circular" letters were sent to each state legislature proposing a second constitutional convention for "previous amendments" but failed in the state legislature. Finally, only North Carolina and Rhode Island waited for an amendment from Congress before ratifying it.
Article Seven of the proposed Constitution establishes the provisions under which a new governmental framework will be established. The new constitution will become operational when ratified by at least nine countries. Only then will it replace the existing government under the Confederation Budget and shall apply only to those States which ratify it.
After controversial battles in several states, the proposed Constitution reached that nine state ratification of the highlands in June 1788. On September 13, 1788, the Confederation Budget stated that the new Constitution had been ratified by more than enough states for a new system to be implemented and directed by the new government to meet in New York City on the first Wednesday of March the following year. On March 4, 1789, a new governmental framework came into force with eleven of the thirteen participating states.
Maps United States Bill of Rights
Proposals and ratifications
Anticipate amendments
The 1st United States Congress, which meets at New York City Hall, is a victory for the Federalists. The Senate of eleven states contains 20 Federalists with only two Anti-Federalists, both from Virginia. The House includes 48 Federalists for 11 Anti-Federalists, the last of which is from only four countries: Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and South Carolina. Among the Virginia delegates to the House was James Madison, Patrick Henry's main opponent in the Virginia ratification battle. In retaliation for Madison's victory in the battle at the Virginia ratification convention, Henry and other Anti-Federalists, who ruled the Virginia House of Delegates, had gerrymandered a hostile district to plan a planned congress and recruited Madison president's future replacement president, James Monroe, to oppose him. Madison defeated Monroe after offering a campaign pledge that he would introduce a constitutional amendment drafting a bill of rights at the First Congress.
Initially opposed to the entry of the bill of rights in the Constitution, Madison has gradually understood the importance of doing so as long as the debate on ratification is often debated. By taking the initiative to propose his own amendments through Congress, he hopes to precede the second constitutional convention that may, feared, undo a difficult compromise in 1787, and open the whole Constitution for review, thus risking a new federal dissolution. government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, "Friends of the Constitution, some of the approval of certain amendments, others of the conciliation spirit, generally agree that the System should be revised, but they want the revision to go no further than to provide additional guardians for freedom. "He also felt that an amendment guaranteeing personal freedom would" give the government his popularity and stability ". Finally, he hopes that the amendments "will acquire a degree of character from the basic principles of free government, and when they are combined with national sentiment, against the impulses of interest and passion". Historians continue to debate the extent to which Madison considers the amendments to the Law of Rights which are necessary, and to what extent does it consider it to be political; in the outline of his address, he writes, "Bill of Rights - useful - not important -".
On the occasion of his inauguration on April 30, 1789 as the country's first president, George Washington discussed the issue of changing the Constitution. He urged legislators,
while you carefully avoid any changes that may jeopardize the benefits of a united and effective government, or that should await future lessons of experience; respect for the distinctive privileges of free men, and respect for public harmony, will adequately influence your judgment on the question, how far the first can be well enriched or the latter can be promoted safely and profitably.
Crafting amendments
James Madison introduced a series of amendments to the Constitution on the House of Representatives for consideration. Among his proposals is one that will add a language of instruction that emphasizes the natural right at the opening. Others will apply parts of the Bill of Rights to countries as well as the federal government. Some seek to protect the individual's personal rights by limiting the various powers of the Constitutional Congress. Like Washington, Madison urged Congress to maintain a "moderate" revision of the Constitution, limited to protecting individual rights.
Madison is widely read in the history of government and uses various sources in compiling amendments. The English Magna Carta of 1215 inspired the right to petition and was judged by a jury, for example, while the Bill of Rights of 1689 gave the initial precedent for the right to defend and carry weapons (though this applies only to Protestants) and is prohibited. cruel and unusual punishment.
The greatest influence on the Madison text, however, is the existing state constitution. Many of his amendments, including his new opening proposal, are based on the Virginia Declaration of Human Rights drafted by Anti-Federalist George Mason in 1776. To reduce denials of future ratification, Madison is also looking for recommendations shared by many countries. He does give one, however, that no country asks: "No country will violate the same rights of conscience, or freedom of the press, or trial by a jury in a criminal case." He did not include any amendments requested by any country, which would make a voluntary tax assessment, not a contribution.
James Madison proposes amendments to the Constitution: Federalist representatives quickly attacked Madison's proposal, fearing that any move to change the new Constitution so soon after its implementation would create instability in government. The House, unlike the Senate, is open to the public, and members such as Fisher Ames warn that prolonged "constitutional dissections" before the gallery can shake public confidence. The procedural battle followed, and after initially passing the amendment to the elected committee for revision, the House agreed to take Madison's proposal as a full start on 21 July 1789.
The eleven member committee made several significant changes to nine changes that Madison proposed, including eliminating most of its opening and adding the phrase "freedom of speech, and the press". The House of Representatives debated the 11-day amendment. Roger Sherman of Connecticut persuaded Parliament to place an amendment at the end of the Constitution so that the document would "remain inviolable", rather than adding it throughout, as Madison proposed. Amendments, revised and condensed from twenty to seventeen, were approved and forwarded to the Senate on 24 August 1789.
The Senate edited this amendment further, making its own 26 changes. Madison's proposal to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the state and federal government was eliminated, and seventeen amendments were compacted into twelve, approved on 9 September 1789. The Senate also abolished the last proposed change of Madison. to the opening.
On September 21, 1789, the House-Senate Conference Committee convened to settle many differences between the two Bill of Rights proposals. On September 24, 1789, the committee issued this report, which completed 12 Amendments to the Constitution for Parliament and Senate for consideration. This latest version was approved by a joint congressional resolution on September 25, 1789, to be forwarded to the state on 28 September.
As the debates and legislative maneuvers that entered into making the Bill of Rights amendments have been completed, many personal opinions have shifted. A number of Federalists appeared in favor, thus silencing the most effective criticism of the Anti-Federalists. Many Anti-Federalists, on the contrary, are now opposed, realizing that Congress's approval of this amendment would greatly reduce the chances of a second constitutional convention. Anti-Federalists like Richard Henry Lee also argue that Bill left the most unpleasant part of the Constitution, such as federal court and direct taxation, intact.
Madison remains active in the progress of amendments throughout the legislative process. Historian Gordon S. Wood writes that "there is no doubt that it is Madison's personal prestige and his persistent determination to see amendments through Congress." There may be a federal Constitution without Madison, but there is certainly no Bill of Rights. "
Ratification process
Twelve articles of amendment approved by the congress were formally submitted to the Legislature of several States for consideration on 28 September 1789. The following countries ratified some or all of the amendments:
- New Jersey: Articles One and Three to Twelve on November 20, 1789, and Article Two on May 7, 1992
- Maryland: Articles One through Twelve on December 19, 1789
- North Carolina: Articles One through Twelve on December 22, 1789
- South Carolina: Articles One through Twelve on January 19, 1790
- New Hampshire: Articles One and Three to Twelve on January 25, 1790, and Article Two on March 7, 1985
- Delaware: Articles Two through Twelve on January 28, 1790
- New York: Articles One and Three to Twelve on February 24, 1790
- Pennsylvania: Articles Three to Twelve on March 10, 1790, and Article One on September 21, 1791
- Rhode Island: Articles One and Three to Twelve on June 7, 1790, and Article Two on June 10, 1993
- Vermont: Articles One through Twelve on November 3, 1791
- Virginia: Article One on November 3, 1791, and Articles Two through Twelve on December 15, 1791
(Having failed to ratify the 12 amendments during 1789 legislative sessions.)After being approved by the required three and a quarter of the states, there were 14 States in the Union at that time (since Vermont was accepted into the Union on March 4, 1791), the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve finished and they became Amendments 1 to 10 of the Constitution. President Washington told Congress about this on January 18, 1792.
Since they have not been approved by 11 out of 14 countries, the ratification of Article One (ratified by 10) and Article Two (ratified by 6) remain incomplete. The ratification of the plateau they needed to reach soon rose to 12 from 15 countries when Kentucky joined the Union (June 1, 1792). On June 27, 1792, the Kentucky General Assembly ratified all 12 amendments, but this action was not revealed until 1996.
Article One came in a single country the number required to be adopted into the Constitution on two occasions between 1789 and 1803. Despite approaching ratification from the beginning, it never received the consent of enough states to become part of the Constitution. Since Congress does not enclose the ratification deadline for the article, it is technically still waiting before the states. Since no country has approved it since 1792, ratification by 27 additional countries will now be required for the article to be adopted.
Article Two, originally ratified by seven countries until 1792 (including Kentucky), was not ratified by other states for eighty years. The Ohio General Assembly ratified it on May 6, 1873 as an unpopular congressional pay rally. A century later, on March 6, 1978, the Wyoming Legislature also ratified the article. Gregory Watson, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, started a new push for ratification of articles with a letter-writing campaign to the state legislature. As a result, in May 1992, quite a number of countries had approved Article Two (38 of the 50 states in the Union) for it to be the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The adoption of this amendment was certified by Archivist of United States Don W. Wilson and later confirmed by Congressional voting on May 20, 1992.
Three countries did not settle the action against twelve articles of amendment when they were originally placed before the states. Georgia found that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and refused to ratify. Both Massachusetts General Court assemblies ratified a number of amendments (the Senate adopted 10 of 12 and House 9 of 12), but failed to reconcile either their lists or to send official notices to the Secretary of State they did agree. Both assemblies of the Connecticut General Assembly decided to ratify Articles Three through Twelve but failed to reconcile their bill after disagreeing whether to ratify Articles One and Two. The three then ratified the Constitution amendments originally known as Articles Three through Twelve as part of the 1939 Bill of Rights' sesquicentennial: Massachusetts war on March 2, Georgia on March 18, and Connecticut on April 19. Connecticut and Georgia will also later ratify Article Two, respectively on May 13, 1987 and February 2, 1988.
Apps and text
The Bill of Rights has little judicial impact during the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans soon forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." The court did not make any important decisions protecting the right to free speech, for example, until 1931. Historian Richard Labunski attributed Bill's long legal tenure to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to flourish that would support Bill's terms with the will of the judiciary and popular; secondly, the Supreme Court spent most of the nineteenth century focusing on issues relating to the balance of power between governments; and thirdly, the bill was initially applied only to the federal government, a limitation affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833). However, in the 20th century, most of Bill's provisions were applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment - a process known as merging - beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925). In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that the protection of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights provisions, does not apply to American Indian government actions. Through the merging process, the United States Supreme Court successfully extended to the United States virtually any protection in the Bill of Rights, as well as other unspecified rights. The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal restrictions on governmental power and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minority protection by providing deep-rooted legal protection for civil liberties and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) the case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to place some rights beyond the reach of the majority, ensuring that some freedoms would survive beyond the political majority. As stated by the Court, the idea of ​​the Bill of Rights "is to withdraw certain subjects from the changes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of the majority and the officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." This is why "fundamental rights can not be left to the vote, they depend on the outcome of no election."
First Amendment
Congress will not make laws respecting religious establishment, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or summarize free speech, or press; or peaceful peoples' rights to gather, and to petition the Government for damages.
The First Amendment prohibits the creation of any law that respects the formation of religion, impedes religious freedom, sums up freedom of speech, violates freedom of the press, disrupts the right to peacefully arrange or prohibit an appeal to the government for redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress, and many of its provisions are interpreted to be narrower than today.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", although the exact extent of this separation is debatable. The right to talk extended significantly in a series of court decisions 20 and 21 protecting various forms of political speeches, anonymous speeches, campaign financing, pornography and school speeches; this decision also sets out a series of exceptions for First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court overturned a common UK legal precedent to increase the burden of proof of slander, especially at the New York Times Co.. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and therefore subject to greater regulation.
Free Press Clause protects the publication of information and opinions, and applies to various media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment was protected against previous restrictions - pre-censorship of publications - in almost all cases. The Petitions clause protects the right to petition all branches and government agencies to act. In addition to the assembly rights guaranteed by this clause, the Court also ruled that the amendments implicitly protect freedom of association.
Second Amendment
The well-organized militia, which is needed for the security of the independent State, the right of the people to guard and bear the Weapons, will not be violated.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to guard and carry weapons. The concept of such rights exists in the common law of England long before the adoption of the Bill of Rights. First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (but applicable only to Protestants), this right is enshrined in the basic laws of several American countries during the era of the Revolution, including 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Long controversial issues in political discourse, law , and American social, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.
- In the United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not provided by the Constitution nor in any way dependent on the instrument for its existence The Second Amendment means nothing more shall not be violated by Congress, other effects than to limit the powers of the National Government. "
- In the United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protect weapons that have] a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of the well-regulated militia".
- In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified the pre-existing rights" and that "protected the right of individuals to possess unrelated weapons to serve in the militia, and used the arm for legitimate traditional purposes, such as defending oneself in the home "but also stating that" the right is infinite, not the right to store and carry any weapon in any way whatsoever and for any purpose ".
- In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment restricts state and local government at the same level thus limiting the federal government.
Third Amendment
No Soldiers shall, at the time of peace lined up in any house, without the consent of the Owner, or at war, but in a manner to be determined by law.
The Third Amendment restricted the army's quartering in private homes, in response to the Quartering Act passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. This amendment is one of the most controversial of the Constitution, and, by 2018, has never been the main basis of the Supreme Court decision.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the public to feel secure in their personal, home, paper and effects, of unwarranted search and seizure, should not be violated, and no Warrants to be issued, but on probable grounds, supported by Oath or affirmation, and in particular describes the place sought, and the people or things to be confiscated.
The Fourth Amendment guards against unwarranted search and seizure, together with requiring a warrant for legal sanctions and supported by possible causes. It was adopted in response to the misuse of the aid warrant, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to the specific information given to the issuing court, usually by law enforcement officers who have sworn. The amendment is the basis for an exclusive rule, which mandates that illegally obtained evidence can not be incorporated into criminal proceedings. Interpretation of amendments has varied from time to time; his protection was extended under the left-leaning courts such as those led by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as William Rehnquist.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held liable for a capital, or a notorious crime, except in a statement or indictment of the Supreme Judge, except in cases arising on land or in the navy, or in the Militia, when in actual service at the moment War or public danger; no one shall be subjected to the same offense to be punished twice in danger of life or limb; nor will it be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor are private property taken for general use, without compensation only.
The Fifth Amendment protects against double dangers and self-torture and guarantees the right to legal proceedings, grand jury screening of criminal charges, and compensation for confiscation of private property under a reputable domain. The amendment is the basis for a court decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which stipulates that defendants should be informed of their rights to a lawyer and against self-torture before being interrogated by the police.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a prompt and open trial, by an impartial jury of States and districts in which the crime shall take place, which district has previously been ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegation; to be faced with witnesses against it; have a mandatory process to obtain witnesses that benefit him, and have Advisory Aid for his defense.
The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of defendants in a criminal trial:
- to a quick and public trial
- to court by an impartial jury
- notified of criminal allegations
- to face the witness
- to force witnesses to appear in court
- for help advice
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that the amendment guaranteed the right to legal representation in all criminal prosecutions in state and federal courts.
Seventh Amendment
In clothing in accordance with common law, where the value in the controversy will exceed twenty dollars, the right of the trial by the jury must be maintained, and no facts tried by the jury will be re-examined in US court, rather than according to general law rules.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury in a federal civil case handling claims of more than twenty dollars. It also forbids judges to set aside the fact finding by jurors in federal civil courts. In Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment requirements could be met by a jury with a minimum of six members. Seventh is one of the few sections of the Bill of Rights not included (applied to the state).
Eighth Amendment
Excessive guarantees will not be required, or excessive penalties are imposed, or cruel and unusual penalties arising.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of excessive bail or fines, although leaving the term "redundant" open to interpretation. The most frequently proposed amendment clause is the latter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This clause is only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court before the 1970s, generally in cases related to execution facilities. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found the death penalty itself as a violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect the "growing standard of decency" when public opinion changed; others find certain practices in capital trials to be too arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively stops execution in the United States for several years. The execution resumes after Gregg v. Georgia (1976), who found the death penalty to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete punishment guidelines. The Court also found that some of the worst conditions of imprisonment were cruel and unusual punishments, as in Estelle v. Gamble (1976) and Brown v. Plata (2011). Ninth Amendment
Enumeration in the Constitution, on certain rights, should not be construed to deny or underestimate the other people detained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment states that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an explicit and complete list of individual rights. It was rarely mentioned in the Supreme Court decision before the second half of the 20th century, when it was quoted by some judges at Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The court in the case abrogated a law prohibiting the use of contraception as a violation of the privacy rights of marriage. This right, in turn, the foundation on which the Supreme Court makes its decision in several important cases, including, Roe v. Wade (1973), who overturned the Texas law making it a crime to help women to have an abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which overturns Pennsylvania law requiring awareness of spouses prior to abortion.
Tenth Amendment
Power that is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by the United States, is reserved to America, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principle of separation of powers and federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited to states, are reserved for states or peoples. The amendment does not grant new powers or rights to the state, but rather retains its authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government.
Congress sometimes gets around the Tenth Amendment by applying the Trade Clauses in Article One or by threatening to hold funds for federal programs from non-cooperative countries, such as in South Dakota v. Dole (1987).
Show and respect the Bill of Rights
George Washington has fourteen handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states. Copies for Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania are missing. New York copies are thought to have been destroyed in the fire. Two unidentified copies of the four missing (considered copies of Georgia and Maryland) survived; one is in the National Archives, and the other is in the New York Public Library. A copy of North Carolina was stolen from the State Capitol by Union soldiers after the Civil War. In the FBI attack operation, he was found in 2003. The copy held by the First Congress has been displayed (together with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) in the Rotunda chambers for the Charters of Freedom. at the National Archives Building in Washington, DC since December 13, 1952.
After fifty years on display, signs of damage in the casing are recorded, while the document itself seems well preserved. Thus, the casing was renewed and the Rotunda was inaugurated on 17 September 2003. In his dedication speech, President George W. Bush stated, "The real [American] Revolution does not oppose a worldly power, but to express principles that stand above every power worldly - the equality of everyone before the Lord, and the responsibility of the government to secure the rights of all. "
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 as Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In 1991, a copy of the Bill of Rights in Virginia toured the country in honor of the last two centuries, visiting the capital of all fifty states.
See also
- Anti-Federalism
- Constitutionalism in the United States
- Four Freedoms
- The Bill of Rights Act Institute
- Patient [bills] rights
- Second Bill of Rights
- Substantive legal process
- Taxpayer Bill
- The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
- We're Holding the Truth
References
- Notes
- Quote
- References
Further reading
External links
- National Archive: Full text from the Bill of Rights of the United States
- Bill of Rights at EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica
- Footnote.com (in partnership with National Archives): An online viewer with High resolution images from original documents
- Library of Congress: Bill of Rights and related resources
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575-81, against Bill of Rights
- TeachingAmericanHistory.org - Bill of Rights
- Bill of Rights United States in Project Gutenberg
- Bill of Rights public domain audiobook on LibriVox
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments