Pros And Cons Of The Seventh Amendment

Ever since April 8, 1913, a portion of US citizens, primarily Conservatives politicians and commentators, have had mixed feelings of the ratification of the 17th amendment. Before, elected members of each House in a state would vote for two senators that they felt best represented their state. Many questioned why the amendment was necessary while a majority defended its ratification. As a result, it’s been argued that this modification took away one of the major powers of the states and increased the national government’s power. Others have said that repealing the amendment would strip away the people’s rights and bring back the corruption that took place in pre-17th amendment elections. But removing and repealing the 17th amendment would finally return powers to the states, decrease corruption, force voters to become more interested in who they’re electing, give Senate the ability to do what they are intended to do, restore the checks and balances system, and restore Federalism. Arguments to remove the amendment outweigh ones that fight to keep it. Repeal it or not, there are still going to be issues. For instance, before the ratification of the 17th amendment, U.S. Senators bought their seats through bribes (Mighell). After 1913, corruption was still present, but it was more of an “underground” deal. It used to be between a candidate and a state legislature, today, it’s the candidate and numerous unknown funding sources (The Campaign). In other words, there were obviously

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

The 13th amendment abolished slavery and freed millions of African Americans. This was supposed to improve their lives and give them a new beginning. However, more than 30 years after the abolishment, their situation has not improved. Their right to vote was revoked in many southern states during the early 1890s. Less than 40% of black children were enrolled in schools in Georgia by 1880. Between 1880 and 1918, over 2400 African Americans were hanged. Africans had the lowest paying jobs and very few owned land. Jim Crow laws were established in many southern states to legalize segregation. Their situation was disastrous and wasn’t improving. Four respected spokespersons presented their ideas to fix this racial inequality crisis. The four courageous people who offered their alternatives were Ida B Wells, Booker T. Washington, Henry Turner and W.E.B Du Bois.

The sixth amendment states, “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 or his defence.” ("The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.") This amendment means that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to a quick and public trial. The trial of the accused must be held by an unbiased jury in the area where the crime supposedly

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America laid the foundation for the basic and fundamental rights that its citizens are entitled to. These principles have been the underlying framework for the United States of America’s government and legal system, where the citizens hold the power. Throughout the country’s history, many laws on both state and federal levels have been challenged and have thus evolved America’s culture. Among these laws that have challenged the Constitution is a famous court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. A highly controversial case, Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future controversies and legal development of its kind.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

Imagine you are taken to court based on a crime you were unfairly charged with. If the Seventh Amendment was not in place, you could be denied from the right to trial by jury. Instead, you would be tried before judges, who are government officials. Without the jury

The Eighth Amendment, ratified in 1791, and it had three clauses. The clauses are Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Excessive Fines, and Excessive bail. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment means that the state and federal government restrict how extreme the punishment is to a person who has done a crime. This clause is made so that the people that are accused are not tortured and killed cruelly. The Excessive Fines restrict the state and federal government the amount of money a person fined for a crime. This clause created was so that the government cannot take a lot of your money away. The Excessive bail means that courts can’t give a tremendous amount of bond to a person who has broken the law. This clause created so that the judge and jury cannot already make their decision before the case even begins. This is why the saying “an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty” is established.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) which is followed by the United States Constitution belongs to the part of the Bill of Rights and will protect each and every individual from being compelled to witnesses against themselves in all sorts of criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a sort of informal term used generally for invoking the right which allows the witnesses to decline the chance of answering the questions which may lead the answers that might incriminate them, and basically it wouldn’t provide any criteria to suffer a penalty to propound the right. This sort of evidentiary privilege makes sure that defendants generally the accused cannot be coercing to become the witnesses at their own trials. If, however, by any chance

The U.S. Constitutional Rights are laws that guarantee the basic rights for the citizens.There are twenty-seven Constitutional Amendments in total, but 10 of them represent The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensures the basic individual protections such as freedom of speech and religion. The Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in December 15, 1791 by George Mason.

The first amendment is a vital and powerful tool for the everyday American. By using the power granted to us we can nip corruption before it blossoms into tyranny. With it, we can organize against a government that answers to corporate and special interests. Our strengths against corporate interests were shown when protests were held across the United

Thanks to the groundbreaking Thirteenth Amendment, no person may be forced to work except in retribution for a crime he or she committed. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is often viewed only as the amendment that abolished the insufferable slavery of African-Americans, - and this does appear to be the case on the surface - however many more interpretations promise many useful arguments for the labor movement and cause controversy over its ineffectiveness in combating racism and its hand in creating the hotly-debated American for-profit prison system.

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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The first amendment of the constitution is a fundamental building block of our liberty. Without it, tyrannical ideals could encompass America with nothing to stop it. With the application of the first amendment the government is kept in check through itself, regulating its own rights and balancing its power. Though perhaps more importantly, this right gives the people the power to petition and address the government with their own concerns; through these rights, the people have the ability to regulate the government’s regulation of itself, and therein lies the absolute

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.