11th Amendment: Passed March 4, 1794, ratified Feb 7, 1795
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Can not sue state
Federal courts can not hear lawsuits against any state's government brought by citizens of another state or foreign country.
Exceptions:
Political subdivisions (counties, cities, or municipalities) can be sued by Federal Judicial branch.
If a state is in violation of a Federal law citizens can sue state based on injunction relief only.
States can waive their Soverign Immunity.
14th Amendment, Due Process Clause can be used to sue states in Federal court.
Case:
Chisholm V. Georgia 1793
Gave states immunity to Article 3 to sue states. Chisholm sued Georgia regarding a supposed debt. But, Georgia disagreed that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. The state of Georgia says that the federal government does not have sovereignty over state governments.
This is a funny image depicting how easy it is to point fingers, although it will not be easy to Sue the State.
In this case 7 latin American Nations push to Join Mexico in an Arizona Case. Ambassator John Bolton is the main speaker. This issue of Mexico trying to stop the Arizona law from taking effect had a wide spread controversy over how this issue undermined the 11th Amendment.
For more information visit:
http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/eleventh-amendment#sthash.FvxKCtt2.dpuf
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.
Antifederalist Idea: States for the people have the power except what Constitution gives the federal government and what the constitution says states can not do.
This Amendment is used to define the Federal police power, federal taxing power, and federal regulations.
Compact Theory- the federal government is a compact of the states, and that the government was a creation of the states.
Sovereignty- State laws rule unless the Constitution says otherwise.
Expressly- Gave power to the states.
Implied Powers-Come from necessary proper clause.
(Look at Article 1 section 8 clause 18)
This video depicts the state leaders of Montana, Utah, and Texas battling out federal gun bans by reinstating their individual state rights as stated in the 10th Amendment. The state rights not only apply to gun laws, but also education and taxation laws as well.
This image depicts the maraijuana issues between the federal and state governments. There are many issues that the federal and state governments dissagree on. The tenth Amendment does not guarentee that the state can override the federal government on all laws. There is always a loophole the federal government can find to get their laws passed.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Breakdown... Enumerated versus Unenumerated Rights unenumerated rights: rights that have not been listed The 9th Amendment:
Idea of privacy
Penumbra: shaded, outer area of shadow that lingers around amendments.
Cases: United Public Workers V. Mitchell 1947 The right to engage in political activity. The Hatch act was enacted in 1887. I restricted political activity of the executive branch employees of the federal government.
The United Public Workers (P) were federal employees who sought a declaratory judgment as well as injunctive relief authorizing them to take part in political campaigns. The argued that the Hatch Act was a violation of their first amendment rights. Mr. Poole, was the only plaintiff who had actually violated the Act and therefore faced being fired from his job. The rest of the plaintiffs simply stated that they desired to partake in campaigns, and do other political activities, though they had not done so previously. Richmond Newspapers V. Virginia 1980 Gave the press the right to report in criminal trials. The Appellant, Richmond Newspapers, moves to have a judicial order for closure of a criminal trial to the press and the public overturned as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Reynolds V. Sims 1964 Gave the right for votes to count in State Electoral districts. The Plaintiffs alleged that the last apportionment of the Alabama legislature was based on the 1900 federal census and that the population growth in the intervening six decades has now made representation discriminatory against areas with fast-growing populations.
Roe V. Wade 1973
Right to have an abortion without mothers life in jeopardy.
Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.
Griswold V. Connecticut 1965
At the time Connecticut state law prohibited the use of contraceptives even if married, and it was also illegal to teach about contraceptives.
Appellant Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and Appellant Buxton, a licensed physician who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven, were arrested and charged with giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons on means of preventing conception. Appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. Appellants appealed on the theory that the accessory statute as applied violated right to privacy mentioned in the United States Constitution. Appellants claimed standing based on their professional relationship with the married people they advised.
Lawrence V. Texas 2003
Court recognized privacy rights of gay people as part of the free exercise clause in the Constitution.
Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” Lawrence and Garner challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence and Garner were each fined $200 and order to pay $141.25 in costs. The Court of Appeals considered defendants’ federal constitutional arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. The court held that Bowers v. Hardwick was controlling regarding the due process issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
This video depicts a Christian's view of the 9nth Amendment in considering conception as a child that should be protected vs. Mothers rights to have an abortion. Regardless of your beliefs you should always educate yourself to different views so that you can understand both sides of the controversy.
This image depicts that we do have unenumerated rights, although they are not specificaly listed. This Amendment is definitely a living Amendment, it opens up the idea that we have more freedom than what is listed.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislature.
Breakdown...
The 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Compromises between the need for the accused to show up for trial, and allows him/her a family business guaranteed to not be excessive.
Bail is not a right.
Judge can deny bail for capital and violent crimes if the accused poses serious risks of flight.
Amendment 8 gives the right to protect from cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive: your punishment must be reasonably proportionate to the seriousness of your crime.
Unusual: punishment a court has never imposed before.
Cases...
Whitley V. Albers 1986
Addresses unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
Albers was a prisoner whose claims arise from his having been shot in the knee by defendant prison officials while they were quelling a prison disturbance in "A" Block of the Oregon State Penitentiary on June 27, 1980. Cellblock "A" consists of two tiers and houses more than 200 inmates. The only reasonable mode of access between the two tiers is a connected stairway. The stairway is separated from the lower tier by a barred door. Prison officers may enter the cellblock from either end, on either tier and can control entry into either tier by means of barred walkways. Defendant Whitley was security manager of the penitentiary; defendant Cupp was superintendent; defendant Keeney was an assistant superintendent; and defendant Kennecott was a corrections officer.
Weems V. U. S. 1910
1. Punishment may not be greatly disproportioned to offences charged. 2. Cruel and Unusual punishment does not have to involve physical pain to qualify as cruel. Weems was 'a duly appointed, qualified, and acting disbursing officer of the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation of the United States Government of the Philippine Islands,' who had been convicted of falsifying official records of the United States Coastguard which resulted in the government being defrauded of the total of 612 pesos.
The Philippine Criminal Code mandated 15 years in prison with hard labor for this offense, plus the added punishment of cadena temporal which required him to be constantly in chains. In addition, he lost all political rights during imprisonment, was subject to permanent surveillance after his release, and was fined 4,000 pesetas.
Weems appealed his conviction on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Robinson V. California 1962
Court said a 90 day prison sentence given to a man for the use of narcotics violated the 8th Amendment.
This case incorporated cruel and unusual punishment clause to states.
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court likened the law to one making it a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease," and argued that the state could not punish persons merely because of their "status" of addiction. The Court noted that the law was not aimed at the purchase, sale, or possession of illegal drugs.
Cooper Industries Inc. V. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. 2001
The Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision applying a less stringent abuse-of-discretion standard to a trial court's decision upholding a punitive damages award.
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., manufactures a multi function pocket tool, the Pocket Survival Tool (PST). In 1996, Cooper Industries, Inc. used photographs of a modified PST to introduce a competing tool, the ToolZall. The photographs were used in posters, packaging, and advertising materials. Subsequently, Leatherman filed an action asserting claims of trade-dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act). Ultimately, a trial jury awarded Leatherman $50,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages. The District Court then entered judgment, rejecting Cooper's argument that the punitive damages were grossly excessive. In affirming, the Court of Appeals, using an "abuse of discretion" standard, concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce the award. Gregg vs Georgia 1976 Capital punishment does not violate the 8th Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment. 1. Makes sure Jury is impartial. 2. The Jury has been allowed to hear all circumstances. 3. The Jury is not forced to hand down the sentence. A jury imposed the death sentence on Gregg (Defendant), after finding him guilty on charges of armed robbery and murder.
This is a comical image depicting the confusion as to what constitutes cruel and unusual torture.
This image depicts a prisoner receiving torture by placing a bag over her/his head and pouring water on the top. The prisoner will feel as if he/she is drowning. This method of torture is not seen as cruel or unusual, it is easy to point fingers at other countries for torture methods, but by this approved method of torture in our counry we are defining ourselves as hypocrites.
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. Breakdown... Guarantees Jury trials in cases that deprive life and liberty, criminal prosecution for imprisonment, and property cases.
Seventh Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury in almost all common-law suits.
Founders saw Jurys as checks on federal Judges. In federal cases a Jury... 1. Decides law on issue 2. Decides equitable relief 3. Decides guilt or innocence as a Judge decides how criminal evidence should be used. 4. If Judge believes a Jury has overlooked evidence presented, he/she can overturn the verdict.
This is a short informative video on the 7th Amendment, and how the civil federal suits went from 20$ to 75,000$.
This image defines the importance of the 7th Amendment in Juries being checks on the federal Government. Jury's are supposed to witness, they offer criminals a chance at a more fair trial than if privately accused.
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. Breakdown... 1. Speedy and public trial. 2. All trials must take place in public, and the defender must be informed of case and nature of accusation. 3. Witnesses for the prosecution must testify in public. 4. The defendant can produce witnesses on his/her behalf. 5. The defendant has a right to secure counsel. 6. A Jury of peers are limited by selection process and are not guaranteed to reside outside of the same county. 7. Jurys are to be unbiased. 8. Speedy trials must take place within a reasonable amount of time after indictment. Cases: Escobedo V. Illinois 1964 Extended right to attorneys counsel right into the interrogation chamber.
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. Howell V. Alabama 1932
Nine young black men were rushed through a rape case. This case was the beginning of an “incorporation” into State constitutions of fair trial rights guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
Nine black men boarded a train and got into a fight with some white men on the train. All but one white man was thrown off the train, two white women on the train told police they had been raped by the black men. All nine youths were found guilty by four separate juries, despite testimony from doctors who said they found no evidence of rape upon examining the women. Eight of the nine men received the death penalty. The convictions were appealed through the State courts of Alabama, and failing there, went to the Supreme Court. Gideon V. Wainwright 1963 The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court’s decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief.
Duncan V. Louisiana 1968 An attorney would only be provided for serious crimes/felony convictions not misdemeanors.
Gary Duncan was convicted of simple battery, a misdemeanor, in a Louisiana district court. Under Louisiana law, jury trials are not granted in misdemeanor cases. Gary Duncan claimed the state’s denial of trial by jury violated the United States Constitution.
This video depicts how clueless people can be of their rights. Duncan tries to get people to sign a fake petition doing away with the 6th Amendment that guarantees right to a speedy trial. He tells the people the petition is for Obama supporters. This just proves to me that we can not afford to be ignorant of our rights.
This image potrays that although citizens can receive a public trial, it does not always mean the citizens of the Jury are going to be concerned or thinking about the trial, many may jump to conclusions. I do believe however annoying Jury duty can be it is essential to allow some of the public to be a part and learn about the justice system.
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 offence 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.
Breakdown...
Rights protected by the fifth amendment. (Bill of Rights)
1. The right to be indicted by an impartial Grand Jury before being tried for a federal criminal offense.
2. The right to be free from multiple prosecutions or punishments for a single criminal offense.
3. The right to remain silent when prosecuted for a criminal offense.
4. The right to have personal liberties protected by Due Process of Law.
5. The right to receive just compensation when the government takes private property for public use.
The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been made applicable to state governments.
Grand juries do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they determine whether Probable Cause exists to believe that the accused has committed a crime, and they return an indictment (formal charge against the accused) if they do find probable cause.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting twice for the same offense of a defendant who has already been acquitted or convicted. It also prevents state and federal governments from imposing more than one punishment for the same offense.
The Eminent Domain Clause permits the government to appropriate private property, both real estate and personal belongings, for a public purpose so long as the owner receives just compensation, which is normally equated with the fair market value of the property.
Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted. It requires that all persons who will be materially affected by a legal proceeding receive notice of its time, place, and subject matter so that they will have an adequate opportunity to prepare. It also requires that legal proceedings be conducted in a fair manner by an impartial judge who will allow the interested parties to present fully their complaints, grievances, and defenses.
The Due Process Clause governs civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings from the pretrial stage through final appeal, and proceedings that produce arbitrary or capricious results will be overturned as unconstitutional. Government action must never be improper or unfair, and must strictly follow rules and steps set down by law.
The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to any state or federal legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, administrative, or judicial in nature. This privilege is frequently invoked during the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand.
Substantive Due Process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings. Including the right of employers to determine the wages their employees would be paid and the number of hours they could work.
CASES: Miranda V. Arizona 1966 Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, you should not be forced to self- incriminate.
Miranda was interrogated by two police officers for two hours in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. The defendant was not given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the written confession was presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
Lochner V. N.Y. 1905
State law can not enforce limitations on the number of hours a bakery owner could require for employees under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.
The Bakeshop Act was a New York state labor law which prohibited bakery employees from working for more than sixty hours per week or ten hours per day. Lochner permitted an employee to work in his bakery for more than sixty hours in one week and was convicted of his second offense and fined. Lochner appealed his conviction on the grounds that the law violated his freedom to contract under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish 1937
Level of fair treatment, wages, conditions for everyone is higher priority than allowing people to make certain harmful decisions for themselves, and other people.
Washington instituted a state wage minimum for women and minors. The West Coast Hotel paid Parrish less than this minimum wage.
In this video a man convicted of murder chooses to remain silent. The Supreme court rules, if you are not being held formally police do not have to inform you of your rights. Your silence can be used against you in court if you do not say "I choose to use my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself." This man's silence was used against him in court to justify his guilt. Be informed of your rights!
This is a funny image that potrays how useful the fifth Amendment can be especially in cases of life and death.
