Bill Of Rights Essay

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

Since its founding, the United States Supreme Court has misconstrued the Constitution on countless occasions. More acutely, however, the Court has failed to respect the Tenth Amendment time and time again. Ratified in December of 1791, the Amendment says, “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.” The Court proved its lack of respect and recognition to Amendment X when it ruled South Dakota v. Dole in 1987.

Ratified in 1787(IIP), the American constitution became the supreme law of the land under article VI of the document: and when the Supreme Court has appropriate jurisdiction, they have the definite power to determine what is says. However, under special circumstances this can be refuted due to article III of the constitution states that congress has the power to make exceptions to the court 's appellate jurisdiction(Heritage). Ergo, while the Supreme Court has the power to say what the constitution is, Congress has the power to grant or remove jurisdiction from any appellate case that is not considered original jurisdiction.

Immigrants may not be citizens, but they are human beings; and the U.S. Constitution protects people's rights. “...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” (Contreras 2015). These words of Thomas Jefferson were influenced by John Locke’s Inalienable Rights. Locke believed that everyone was given these rights by God when each individual was born and that these rights could not be taken away by anyone. Law enforcement must be unbiased and cannot deprive any person of their rights. “You have the right to defend yourself against deportation or removal from the United States” (Bray 2017).

The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, which are the first ten amendments written by Jame Madison in response to calls from several states. As well as greater Constitutional protection of individual liberties. “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms(Bill of Rights).” The Bill of Rights limits the government's power. One point of contention between Federalists and Anti federalists were the Constitution’s lack of a Bill of Rights that would place specific limits on government power.

“...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 on the laws (US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1)”. Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that guarantees that states cannot enforce laws that deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights given in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment passed in 1868, still upholds a controversial role. Although the initial intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was to implement equality for newly freed slaves, its power expanded to justifying the application of federal rights granted by the Bill of Rights to state governments. On a case by case basis, the Supreme Court decides on which aspects of the Bill of Rights it will apply to the states. The idea of selective incorporation has influenced American federalism tremendously due to multiple variances in opposing and supporting outlooks. Numerous cases of violated rights will be the topic of discussion, and how selective incorporation has brought justice among them all. Demonstrated in this paper will be how Selective Incorporation has made a significant difference in America, and reflect on how it came about.

From the time it was first proposed in 1789, the Bill of Rights was controversial. The founding fathers had already considered adding a Bill of Rights in the original 1787 Constitution, mainly because they knew the people feared a powerful central government and formally stating their rights in this new document would appease them. They did not add it, however, thinking it was not really necessary. Each state had their own version of a Bill of Rights anyway. The framers of the Constitution decided that just because rights were not enumerated for the individual states in the Constitution did not mean that the federal government controlled the lives of every citizen. The debate over the Bill of Rights came down to the Federalists

It is within the powers of Congress to make amendments to the constitution. In response to the 1973 rulings, Congress did the Eleventh Amendment which in itself overrode the court decisions.

We live in the 21st century, where most Americans mind their own business but take for granted our God given rights. Not only God given rights but also those established by our founding forefathers. This paper will illustrate and depict the importance of the original problems faced when adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will discuss the importance of the first amendment, the due process of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 8th amendments. Last but not least the importance of what is known as the “second Bill of Rights” (14th amendment).

The 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution forbids states from denying any person life, liberty and property without due process of the law. It further states that any person, within a state’s jurisdiction, cannot be denied equal protection of its laws. This amendment protects all people.

Although federal courts particularly do not for all intents and purposes write or for all intents and purposes pass laws, they may establish sort of individual “rights” under federal law through their interpretations of federal and state laws and the U.S in a pretty big way. Regulations actually are issued by federal agencies, boards, or commissions, definitely contrary to popular belief. Regulations for all intents and purposes are published very yearly in The Code of Federal Regulations in a subtle way. If an agency wants to make, change, or delete a rule, the agency will publish the sort of proposal in the Federal essentially Register and really seek for all intents and purposes public comments in a kind of big way. Supreme Court’s decision

This behavior also goes against our Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law. “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

When discussing the issue of federal-state relations, critics argue that the writ gives federal courts more power (Federman, 24). When in fact it is written in the Constitution, that the federal court has jurisdiction over cases and should hear cases if they violate constitutional rights. Therefore states are subject to have their rulings overturned and individuals have the right to have other courts hear their case if they feel that due process is being violated. Habeas corpus thus falls directly into jurisdiction of federal courts. However, since the passing of

“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

With Article III, the founding fathers established the Supreme Court, also called SCOTUS, to interpret the Constitution. Over time, and after reviewing multiple decisions, SCOTUS increased their powers and authority. From cases such as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), SCOTUS assumed the privilege of judicial review and jurisdiction over penumbral state rights. Supreme Court skeptics claim that the justices are undemocratic, and the Framers recognized their dissent. In response, they developed measures to limit judicial expansion and preserve their political independence. Because of the additions, the Supreme Court should retain their power to overturn state laws.