14th Amendment

Ratified
July 28, 1868        
SECTION. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION. 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION. 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION. 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION. 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Breakdown...
Amendment 14:

• Made African American's citizens.
• Protects the rights of the people.
• Enforces the Bill of Rights on the states.
• Ensured that debts due to the emancipation of slaves were “null and void” (not allowed).

3 Clauses that apply to this Amendment:

• Due Process Clause-trial by jury for all people accused of wrongdoing.
• Equal Protection Clause-no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
• Citizenship Clause-gives individual born in the United States, but especially at that time, African Americans the right to citizenship. 

Cases:

Richardson v. Ramirez (1974)

  Three felons who had completed their sentences, brought a class action against California’s Secretary of State and election officials. They argued that the state had no compelling interest to justify denying them the right to vote. The California Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a state does not have to prove that its felony disenfranchisement laws serve a compelling state interest. The Court pointed to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which exempted felony disenfranchisement laws from the heightened scrutiny given to other restrictions on the right to vote. The Court said that Section 2, which reduces a state’s representation in Congress if the state has denied the right to vote for any reason “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” distinguishes felony disenfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions, which must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in order to be constitutional.

Dredd Scott v. Sanford 1856

Slave-Dredd Scott was living in Missouri. His owner took him to two free states (Minnesota and Illinois) listed under the Missouri Compromise.  Then his master returned to Missouri and sold him to a man named Sanford. Dredd Scott sued Sanford for his freedom under the Missouri Compromise because he should have been a citizen of Missouri by living in a free state for so long. The veiw from Chief Justice Roger Taney was that slaves were not intended to be included in the Constitution under the name of citizens, or have the liberty or rights associated with that name. Since Dredd Scott is not considered a citizen he can not sue, basically voiding the Missouri compromise ad reffering to blacks as property. This man never did obtain his freedom, unfortunately.



This Image of a counterdemonstration in New York City  depicts the harsh opinion that the children of immgrants born in America should not be considered citizens.



This image depicts the controversy over President Obamas birthplace, and the worry that a baby born in the U.S. by immagrants "anchor baby" could possibly become a president. Most of my famil, although they would never admit it, do not consider immigrants to be valuable people because our society does not view them as citizens. We must not forget that we too were immigrants to America and value of any individual should not be based on society's views, we have seen this issue in slavery.

13th Amendment

13th Amendment

Passed by Congress  January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865

Section 1.

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 legislation.

Breakdown...

This Amendment:

• Freed the slaves, and eliminated forced involuntary labor.

Does not include:

• Labor of convicted criminals
• Military service for those drafted
• Jury duty

These images depict African Americans who joined the North side of the Civil War. What a lot of people do not know is while the war was raging in 1861, before the 13th Amendment was passed, when slaves escaped their Southern masters, a lot of white men in the North would return the slaves to the South, back to their masters for a sum of money. When slaves were returned their masters would usually beat them and usually kill them. However sometimes an escaped slave would have the option to either join in the fight for the North, or be returned to their masters. These Aftrican Americans, some which volunteered, were seen as expendable soldiers, someone to do the dirty work. In a sence they traded one kind of slavery for the next.


This image depicts that although slavery in a sence was abolished, there arose a new slavery inside the economy. What do you define slavery as? I define it as to be forced to work in order to allow yourself and family the basic needs of life. To be seen as less of an individual than the person you work for, to be seen by that person as a means of more income/property. The idea of Freedom and Justice for all remains part of our Country's ego. However this is, and will always be an idea not a fact. The 13th Amendment did not solve the slavery issue, however it allowed the African American race a chance to choose who they wished to serve.

12th Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the PresidentThe person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


Breakdown...
 This Ammendment changed the PROCESS of how a President/Vice-President is elected.

• The President and Vice-President are voted on separately.
•  Congress picks from the top 3 candidates.
•  The Vice-President must have the same qualifications as the president (35 yrs old, and lived 14 consecutive years in the U.S.).
• Strongly reccomends that the Vice-President and President be from separate states.
• Did not change the makeup of the Ellectoral College.
• No elecotor may vote for both candidates of a Presidential ticket.

The issue that pushed for this Amendment was because Aaron Burr, a Vice President candidate, and Thomas Jefferson, the Presidential candidate received the same number of votes which resulted in the vote going to the House of Representatives. I think I would feel a little cheated if this happened today especially if the House of Representatives picked the person that I didn't vote for. It would almost seem like the Government could choose their own President . Luckily thanks to the 12th Amendment this should never happen again, because now they are voted on separately.



This funny post depicts how good publicity (such as kissing a baby) can effect the voting process. Many times the public, myself included are buisy and distracted with work that we fail to do research on who we should vote for. What things do they value/promote? We also have to consider the fact that they may see what the majority of the people value and use that information to gain a majority vote. That does not necessarily indicate that they will uphold what they propose. For example, I could say, "I wish to see every child in America fed, housed, and on a successfull path towards good careers and a brighter future." Well of course who wouldn't wish that? But that does not indicate that once he obtains your vote he will follow through with proposed improvements.

11th Amendment (Amendment to Article 3)

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

10nth Amendment

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.

9th Amendment

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.
 

Amendment 8 - (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

Section 1.

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.