The Constitutional And Statutory History Of The Right

In his book titled The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, Akhil Amar tries to offer the interpretation of the Bill Rights by evoking the world of framers of the constitution and that of the people who amended the constitution. According to Amar, there are numerous differences about the original bill of rights as they were originally framed and those that are contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868. Amar tries to construct a theory of Bill of Rights that is comprehensive by focusing on the implications that are drawn from constitutional text as well as its structure. Amar points out, “The main goal of the Federalists was to forge set of the federally enforceable rights which were against the abusive state governments and this resulted to Fourteenth Amendment” (4). The book tries to explain the first 10 amendments by interpreting them and offering the new insights. This essay focuses on discussing the differences between the Founding Fathers Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments as it argued by Amar.

In response the five states ratification at the conventions recommended guaranteeing the right to jury trial in civil cases by constitutional amendment. The amendment protected findings of fact in civil cases exceeding certain dollar value from judicial review. Congress decided to add the proposed Bill of Rights to end of the constitution later on, directly to Article Three. “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”: When the Seventh Amendment was written in the 1700s, $20 was considered a lot of money. Today, any disputes that involve amounts less than $75000 will not be handled in a federal court. The Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial also guarantees a jury that is of official size, or be able to handle the case. The court decided upon a six-member jury, and believed I would be sufficient to meet the amendment’s requirements in the case of Colgrove v. Battin (1973) and in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that a five-member jury violated the amendment’s

In 1791, the Bill of Rights was created to specify the individual rights of every human being. Madison James is the creator of the 10 Amendments, he believed it was necessary to create the document to further explain what the Constitution will provide for each person. The Bill of Rights gives every citizen the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of the press, and lastly the due process rights. This document was formed when the Constitution in 1789 was drafted. Federalist viewed the Bill of Rights as an unnecessary document that the Anti-federalist wanted in order to feel safe in knowing what the Constitution was really about and what was entitled to them.

Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court which ruled that the Appellants Constitutional rights were violated. Officials from both Burlington and Essex County Appealed

The Bill of Rights, written by Antifederalists, shows us how some Americans were fearful of a strong central government, how they wanted a limited government so it wasn’t too powerful, and how they protected basic individual rights. The Anti-federalists begged and argued for a new list that secured the rights they believed the original Constitution did not provide. There was a constant debate between whether or not to add the Bill of Rights, because some people thought that if they created it, all other rights were insignificant. Many Americans were fearful that the government was going to have too much power because of the Constitution, but they felt secure if they made a list of their official rights. Most of the people who wanted the Bill of Rights, were poor people, who felt they needed a say in the government.

The creations of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution were established to protect an individual, rights to property, and the limit the empowerment of the government. In this legal document, a person is guaranteed rights to freedoms that are often taken for granted such as, freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms; the right to refuse to self-incriminate. These rights are often seen as simple and inalienable more than less they are complex rules and exceptions that govern these rights that the average person is not entirely aware of or have a clear understanding of them. The Fourth Amendment, which states the right to privacy in one 's own home, and protection from illegal, and unreasonable search and seizure. Is the Fourth Amendment often violated by police officers or are they in the right to conduct warrantless searches and seizures. Does exigent circumstances fully allow police to conduct a warrantless search at the scene of an emergency.

An important provision of the Bill of Rights is the protection of freedom to publish, as provided by the First Amendment. This protection applies to all kinds of publications, even those that print unpopular opinions. In most censorship cases, every attempt is made to suppress the written word after publication, not before. Minnesota passed a law in 1925 that sought to prevent newspapers, magazines, and other publications from printing obscene, malicious, scandalous and defamatory material. This law was called the Minnesota Gag Law . This law allowed private citizens and/or public prosecutors to request a court injunction to shut down any publication that was known as a public nuisance. Publishers of newspapers had to show that they had good motives for anything they were going to print before they printed it.

Contraceptives are widely used throughout the United States in today’s age and age, but in the early 1950s, Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only states in the union that still had anticontraception policies such as the 1879 Connecticut statute prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives (Johnson 6). Estelle Griswold accepted a job as executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and began a fight to give access for women to use contraceptives legally. It was very predictable the verdicts for the lower court cases during Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as many judges took the side of the 1879 precedent. However, by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the main issue focused was the right to privacy which

Jury duty is a constitutional and fundamental right guaranteed to American citizens. Jury service is a way for citizens to directly participate in the judicial system. Jury duty and jury trials have been around for so long that people take it for granted. The jury was one of the factors that caused the American Revolution because the English common law system did not allow alleged criminals to have the sixth amendment rights that the United States has today. In fact, The Declaration of Independence charged that King George III deprived the colonists of a trial by jury (United States Federal Judicial Center, n.d). The Founding Fathers of the United States established the role of the jury and the right to trial by jury in most criminal and civil cases in the Constitution but that clearly cannot be fulfilled unless there are people serving on a jury.

When The United States came into being, the heads of the country made a great deal of emphasis in making sure the country fulfilled one requirement: the United States needed to be the living image of freedom. This image of freedom needed to exist not only as a geographical and political entity, meaning free from the English, but as a society as well, and that is why it opted for a democracy as a system to rule, to let the citizens be able to live freely. Despite the obvious issues presented in the country on that moment that we might call hypocrite, like slavery; the founding fathers knew what they wanted the country to achieve, and laid a great base for getting there, The Bill of Rights, the document that preceded the Constitution in

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 case between Salazar and Buono, the First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. By establishing favoritism towards Christianity the U.S government violated the Establishment Clause. This paper analyzes the rhetorical situation between the governments interference within religion

The Bill of Rights is defined as the first ten amendments to the constitution. Without these amend- ments, the people would not accept the constitution. The people thought of the constitution as a list of rules without any rights. In return, the Bill of Rights was created to satisfy those demands for privileges.

In 1791, the Bill of Rights was created to specify the individual rights of every human being. Madison James is the creator of the 10 Amendments, he believed it was necessary to create the document to further explain what the Constitution will provide for each person. The Bill of Rights gives every citizen the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of the press, and lastly the due process rights. This document was formed when the Constitution in 1789 was drafted. Federalist viewed the Bill of Rights as an unnecessary document that the Anti-federalist wanted in order to feel safe in knowing what the Constitution was really about and what was entitled to them.

In the 1963 decision of Gideon v. Wainwright, the court sought to establish the guarantee of a “fair trial before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963). In Gideon, the court announced a right to counsel in criminal cases. Id. However, this decision only extended to criminal cases and left civil litigants waiting for their own Gideon decision.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.