The bill of rights Essay Example

by the government, while creditors were unhappy that foreclosure proceedings gave them ownership of these properties. This situation highlighted the federal government's inability to effectively aid either side. Negotiating diplomacy that satisfied all parties between Confederation and neighboring nations was challenging due to differing opinions among the 13 states. The southwestern states had a strong sense of independence, prompting Congress to send John Jay, then serving as secretary of foreign affairs, to negotiate a treaty with Spain on American rights when navigating the Mississippi river. Don Diego de Gardoqui represented Spain and convinced Jay to sign an agreement where America would relinquish all rights to the Mississippi river for 25 years.
The proposed treaty led to a deeper division between the southwestern states and the others when they learned about it, as it did not directly benefit them or align with their desire to navigate the Mississippi river. As a result, the treaty was never ratified, foreshadowing potential hostility seen in events leading up to the Civil War.

The framers of the Constitution gathered in Philadelphia with the intention of addressing issues present in the Articles of Confederation, such as insufficient support for national defense and economic concerns. Modifying federal government powers specified in those articles was crucial.

The preamble of the Constitution declares that "We the People of United States" establish this Constitution to create a more perfect Union and ensure justice, peace, collective defense, general welfare, and liberty for ourselves and future generations. This statement signifies that ordinary citizens were responsible for writing this document and would benefit from it.

During the 1780s, being part of a citizenry with a collective voice was unfamiliar to average peasants

or craftsmen accustomed to an authoritarian political culture.However, the framers of our Constitution were aware of these dangers associated with absolute power and recognized the importance of a strong government that includes mechanisms for checks and balances. The Constitution establishes a system where the executive branch enforces laws, appoints members to the cabinet, and serves as both head of state and commander in chief during times of war. The President proposes laws to Congress for approval and has the authority to veto bills passed by Congress. This serves as a check on the power of Congress. On the other hand, Congress controls spending, regulates commerce both internally and externally, approves cabinet appointments and foreign treaties, can reject proposed bills, override vetoes with a 2/3 majority vote, reject cabinet or treaty approvals, and impeach or remove a President from office. The Judicial branch consists of Supreme Court Judges who serve lifelong terms and have the authority to declare executive orders or laws unconstitutional; they cannot be removed once appointed. The President is authorized to grant pardons and appoint new members to the Supreme Court. Additionally, Congress has the ability to eliminate federal courts, impeach Judges, and reject Executive appointees to the Supreme Court. This power structure among the three branches of government relies on gaining consent from the people. If any branch underperforms its duties, citizens have voting as a means to rectify the situation.The text acknowledges that while it may not be possible to directly influence the Supreme Court, electing members of Congress enables the impeachment and appointment process. It emphasizes that power is divided between branches of government and states. The complexity of the

federal government is recognized as a potential obstacle to progress, but it also highlights the effectiveness of democracy based on the enduring US Constitution. The importance of the Bill of Rights in protecting fundamental rights such as religious freedom, free speech, and peaceful assembly is mentioned. The period before the Declaration of Independence is described as a time when civil unrest occurred due to colonists' grievances against British authority under George III and Parliament's suppression of rebellion through censorship. The absence of a free press corps hindered effective objection to British occupation, while restrictions on assembly further stifled opposition to imperial actions.The text highlights the British Crown's disregard for important freedoms such as assembly rights, a free press, freedom of speech, and petitioning government. James Madison emphasized the protection of these rights through the 1st Amendment in the new republic to ensure everyone's voice was heard. Initially, religious freedom was only mentioned in Maryland's charter but later became part of the 1st Amendment. The violation of varying religious beliefs within Puritan colonies illustrated their stance on religious freedom in the New World. In 1943, during World War II, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance in West Virginia State Board of Education v.Barnette. While understanding why some parents and students opposed mandatory participation is essential during that significant time from Board of Education's perspective.The Constitution explicitly and implicitly acknowledges the importance of freedom of speech, granting individuals the right to choose whether or not to speak. This fundamental right, as outlined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, has sparked debates on various controversial

issues. These include flag-burning protected under freedom of speech (Texas v.Johnson, 1989), polygamy as a matter of free exercise (Reynolds v.United States, 1879), teaching evolution versus freedom of speech (Epperson v.Arkansas, 1968), and internet child pornography versus freedom of speech (Ashcroft v.Free Speech Coalition, 2002).

On the other hand, the Second Amendment establishes that individuals have the right to bear arms and emphasizes the significance of a well-regulated militia for national security. In the late 18th century, citizen militias like the Minutemen played a crucial role in warfare and were integrated into military ranks for easier support to armies compared to modern times. After achieving independence, it became the nation's responsibility to defend itself and heavily relied on these militia groups for national defense. To ensure their maintenance, rights related to firearms were included in the Bill of Rights; however, this focused on citizens' duty to bear arms in defense rather than unrestricted firearm ownership.

In United States v.Miller case in 1939 sawed-off shotguns were addressed,and it was determined that registering them under National Firearms Act was constitutional.The decision to ban sawed off shotguns was based on the recognition that they were unsuitable for military use and instead designed for close-range killing and easy concealment. Currently, there are differing perspectives on this issue. Gun enthusiasts argue that the 2nd Amendment does not protect sawed off shotguns, as they are not relevant to a militia. Conversely, gun-control advocates believe that this case highlights the necessity of limiting firearm usage to militias only, rejecting the notion of using guns for self-defense or recreation.

There are several controversial issues regarding firearms, such as firearm registration in United States v.Miller (1939),

the legality of handguns in Quilici v.Morton Grove (1982), and the argument that the Brady Bill is unconstitutional because it cannot enforce compliance with federal requirements on state law enforcement officials, as demonstrated in Printz v.United States (1997).

Moving on to another topic, Amendment III of the Bill of Rights states that no soldier can be quartered in anyone's house without their consent during times of peace. During war, soldiers must abide by prescribed laws when being quartered. The Quartering Act imposed by George III and Parliament before the War for Independence was one of the Intolerable Acts and placed responsibility on colonists to provide housing and food for British troops stationed nearby. Subsequent amendments required British troops to actually stay within colonists' homes.The impact of having British soldiers quartered among the colonists, including women and children, greatly influenced their thinking. Only one case, Engblom v. United States 1997, has examined the interpretation of the 3rd amendment in a lower court called the US Court of Appeals. In 1982, Carey addressed privacy concerns related to quartering US troops among citizens during a prison guard strike in New York state. Some guards who lived in dormitories on prison grounds were required to pay rent for these dormitories which served as their only homes. When the guards went on strike, the National Guard was brought in to protect the prison and they stayed in these dormitories that belonged to the guards.There was uncertainty about whether this situation fell within the scope of applicability of the 3rd amendment.Despite not being an owner of her living space, Engblom still had a right to privacy and it was determined by the

Court that this right is protected by interpreting it through application of the 3rd amendment. However, she ultimately lost her case based on other reasons.The main purpose behind utilizing and interpreting provisions stated within this amendment is primarily aimed at ensuring that an individual's home remains shielded from any civil or military intrusion while strongly emphasizing safeguarding one's right to privacyJustice Joseph Story stated in 1833 that the Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v.
Connecticut (1965) expanded its protection of married couples' rights to include contraceptive use, along with other amendments such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th. The inclusion of these amendments serves as a reminder that there are limits to the government's intrusion on citizens' privacy. This concept is further reinforced by Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV guarantees people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, protecting them from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Prior to the War for Independence, British troops and customs inspectors had authority granted by the King and Parliament to search individuals and premises without cause for suppression of rebellion and confiscation of suspicious items. However, granting such power raised concerns about potential abuse.

In Kyllo v.United States (2001), law enforcement used thermal imaging technology to detect unusual heat levels emanating from Kyllo's residence as he was suspected of being a drug dealer. Based on this information obtained through a warrant , they conducted a raid where they discovered an indoor marijuana farm illuminated by hot lamps. The Court has ruled that using sense enhancing devices without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Conducting unannounced searches of citizens' residences crosses a line even in the war on

drugsThe text explores various controversial issues related to legal searches and protections under the Bill of Rights. It discusses cases such as New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), which addresses searching juveniles in school, and Wilson v. Layne (1999), which sets limitations on involvement during warranted searches. Furthermore, it mentions California v. Ciraolo (1986) concerning the legality of aerial surveillance, and California v. Greenwood (1988) regarding searching trash for evidence.

It emphasizes the importance of individuals being protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, ensuring fair treatment and preventing unfair punishment. This amendment guarantees grand jury involvement except in military or militia matters during wartime or public danger. Additionally, it prohibits double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and deprivation of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures.

The text underlines how these judicial procedures were violated by British authorities during colonial rebellions in their pursuit of justice. It also highlights how information obtained during interrogations can be used against individuals in court by referencing the case Miranda v.Arizona as an example. In this case, Ernesto Miranda's conviction was overturned because his confession was deemed involuntary due to coercion and lack of knowledge about his rights to an attorney or remaining silent.

To ensure a voluntary confession is obtained from a suspect, they must be fully informed about their rights before giving up those rights during interrogationsAs a result of this significant case, arresting officers now have an obligation to inform those they arrest about their rights. These rights include the following:
- "You have the right to remain silent"
- "Anything you say can and will be used against you in court."
- "You have the right to an attorney,

and to have an attorney present while you are being questioned."
- "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning begins."

The amendment raises controversial issues related to various legal cases such as:
- The use of grand jury indictments at the state level (Hurtado v.California 1884)
- Sentencing habitual sexual predators to mental health facilities without violating double jeopardy (Kansas v.Hendricks 1997)
- The issue of self-incrimination (Miranda v.Arizona 1966)
- Balancing due process with police procedures (Rochin v.California 1952)
- Just compensation regarding private land use (Hawaii Housing Authority v.)

Analyzing the previous amendment reveals that British authorities in the colonies disregarded proper judicial proceedings in order to suppress rebellion. The text highlights multiple instances where the justice system failed to provide fair and unbiased jury trials. For example, suspects were either held in prison for long periods before legal proceedings or taken to Britain for trial in an Admiralty Court without peers or sympathy for the accused. These private proceedings lacked representation from peers and undermined justice, greatly shocking the colonists.The Court examined Taylor v. Louisiana 1975, a case regarding a Louisiana state law that excluded women from jury selection unless they specifically requested to be included due to family concerns. According to the United States' 1965 Texas Bill of Rights Amendment VII, cases involving disputes exceeding twenty dollars must have a fair trial by jury, with no re-evaluation of jury decisions except under common law principles. The mistreatment by British authorities resulted in several amendments to the Constitution that emphasized the importance of just and unbiased jury trials. These authorities engaged in unfair practices favoring certain parties and disregarding prior jury verdicts.

Colgrove v...in 1941 exemplifies this situation, where Texas argued for including the amendment in the Bill of Rights to highlight the preservation of the right to trial by jury. The Supreme Court considered Battin 1973, a case addressing appropriate civil-case jury sizes. They concluded that a 6-person jury is more efficient than a 12-person one and smaller juries do not impact verdicts. This decision influenced civil court standards compared to criminal court requirements where unanimous decisions are still necessary for both types of juries. The eighth amendment, stated in the Bill of Rights in 1791, prohibits controversial issues and excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.
During a time when courts imposed harsh punishments like drawing and quartering, hanging, and ear-cutting, which were considered cruel and unusual for that era, the founding fathers sought to establish limits on punishment spectacles while allowing defendants to post bail for their defense needs. Currently, our understanding of "cruel and unusual punishment" primarily revolves around the death penalty. In the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia, its legality was examined by Justice William Brennan who argued that even the most repugnant criminal still possesses inherent human dignity. The progress of the law has now reached a point where considering the death penalty, along with other forms of punishment such as the rack, screw, and wheel, as morally acceptable in our civilized society is no longer deemed acceptable. Justice Potter Stewart supports the death penalty by claiming that retribution and deterrence from future homicides are benefits of an active death penalty. However, it is collectively recognized by the Court that not all instances of using the death penalty violate the Constitution.

Various controversial issues arise concerning these matters including excessive bail compared to defendants' rights in United States v. Salerno in 1987 which specifically examines excessive use of the death penalty with consideration given to defendant's race. Furthermore, Furman v.Georgia in 1972 questioned the legality of using capital punishment while Gregg v.Georgia in 1976 further analyzed its application for crimes beyond murderEnmund v. Florida (1982) and Ingraham v. Wright (1977) both dealt with corporal punishment in schools, relating to Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights. This amendment ensures that rights listed in the Constitution do not diminish other retained by individuals. During this period, political authorities assumed that if a right was not explicitly stated, it did not exist. The founding fathers wanted to guarantee that rights would be assumed unless specified otherwise. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) examined the 9th Amendment and focused on marital privacy and a state law banning contraceptive use in Connecticut. The Court determined that marital privacy is protected under this amendment.

Controversial topics include laws regarding contraceptives versus marital privacy (Griswold v.Connecticut, 1965), sodomy versus sexual privacy (Lawrence v.Texas, 2003, overturning Bowers v.Hardwick, 1986), and Amendment X of the Bill of Rights which reserves powers to states or people. One reason for the Revolution was British authorities' disregard for local government power and their deployment of troops when local governments refused to comply with Parliament and George III's laws.The text discusses three court cases: Darby Lumber Company (1941), Brown v.Board of Education (1954), and Printz v.United States (1997). The case of Darby Lumber Company recognized the federal government's dominance over local governments due to its military might. In the case of

Brown v.Board of Education, racial segregation in public schools was ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment in 1954. This led to a power struggle between federal and state governments, with states arguing that their individual rights were protected by the 10th Amendment. As a result, National Guard units were deployed to enforce segregationist policies, but the Court mandated that these students' rights be protected and sent out units from the 101st Airborne. Additionally, controversy arose in United States v.Printz regarding power delineation between states and the federal government. This case questioned whether state law enforcement agencies can be obligated by the federal government, similar to how it was discussed in relation to the Board of Education case in 1954 under the context of the Brady Bill.