Amendment X: State Security

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.

This amendment ends the Bill of Rights and gives power that hasn't been given to the national government to the states' governments. This is a reiteration that states and people have the power except for what power the Constitution gives the federal government and what it prohibits the state's from doing. However, it is a vague amendment because the Constitution allows the government to express powers that aren't expressly stated in the document. The Articles of Confederation (precursor to the US Constitution) said that any power not expressly given to the nation was up to the states' discretion to regulate. This word "expressly" denied implied powers of the national government. This was amended in the Constitution to protect implied powers such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 (or the Necessary and Proper clause). This clause allows the national legislature to pass laws that are necessary and proper for the prosperity of the country. James Madison stated that without this clause the Constitution would be a "dead letter". While this amendment was originally crafted to benefit state government, it now is more beneficial to national government.

The decision to abort an unborn child should not be regulated by national government.

Thoughts? Post them in the comments.

A warning to big government to watch out for states' bite

For more information on this amendment, click here.

Amendment IV: Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A crucial amendment in the Constitution, this deals with rights that are not expressed in the document and how they are still retained by the people (citizens). This has been a hotly debated amendment for the classification of which unenumerated rights can actually be enforced. In the case United Public Workers v. Mitchel the Supreme Court said the right to engage in political activity is an unenumerated right. In Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia it expressed the press' right to report in criminal trials. As far as whether these decisions have been good or bad I believe that these decisions are good and good respectively. I am of the opinion that political efficacy is of vital importance and if someone cannot engage in political activity then there can be governmental control of who and how people are politically active. As far as the right of the press to report in criminal trials I think that it is a right for the press to report criminal trials (the judge can order a closed courtroom however). Due to the very heavy biases of the media and its ability to be coerced into reporting false news, the press' information should be taken with a grain of salt.

One of the major discussions surrounding this amendment is the issue of privacy. The issue of privacy is not expressly stated in the Constitution and this has led to some believing it is not a right under the law. Penumbra (a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution) is a word used to describe the rights expressed and implied through the combination of amendments 1, 3, and 4 in concert with the 9th. This allows the implication of privacy without the explicit expression of privacy. What do you think about these rights? What are some other rights that aren't in the Constitution that you think are still rights?

Even though it doesn't seem like it, the 9th Amendment is very important!

Everyone has a different opinion on privacy, what's yours?

Click here, for more information on this amendment.

Amendment VIII: Capital Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This rather short-worded amendment is nonetheless an extremely relevant amendment to this country. This one in particular protects citizens of this nation from punishments or restrictions that are unnecessary or overboard. In the Supreme Court case Gregg v. Georgia the court decided that capital punishment does not violate this amendment iff (not a typo, check out what iff means here) three requirements are met. They are:

1. The jury must be impartial
2. The jury has been allowed to hear all mitigating circumstances and family pleas
3. The jury has not been coerced to hand down a decision

If these three stipulations are met, a jury can pass a sentence of capital punishment. What do you think about this? Should capital punishment be legal in the United States? What about the death penalty? I'm a supporter of the death penalty but I also think that there needs to be drastic changes to the methods utilized and the efficacy of the process. Let me know what YOU think in the comments below.

This execution might be more effective than some electric chairs out there.

Where does your state fall in the spectrum? Do you support it?

For more information about this article, click here.

Amendment VII: A Preponderance of Evidence

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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This amendment guarantees a trial by jury for people facing charges that would deprive them of life and liberty, although the value has been raised from $20 to $75,000: a protection of the courts from complete overload. This amendment also allows people to be tried in criminal and civil court cases for the same crime. This is based on the burden of proof for the different court systems. In criminal courts, a decision must be made that is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in civil cases, there only needs to be a preponderance of evidence. An example of this is the famous (infamous?) O.J. Simpson case where he was acquitted of his criminal charges, where the burden of proof is high; but was found guilty on civil charges in a later case, where the burden of proof is lower.

The jury, even though, secured by right, still may want to be waived in favor of a bench trial.

For some background information, click here.