A thought, nay a collection of thoughts. Ideas and opinions spreading like the tendrils of a spider's web, touching people's minds and sparking curiosity.
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 for his defence.
The right to speedy and public trial as well as an impartial jury are crucial to the success of our criminal justice system. There are eight separate guarantees of this amendment that are listed below:
(1) Right to a speedy trial
(2) All trials must be public and accused must be informed of charge (not always public, in the case of Grand Jury "trials")
(3) Witnesses for the prosecution must testify in public
(4) Defense can produce witnesses to testify on his behalf
(5) Defense has the right to secure council (if not able, a public defender will be provided)
(6) The trial can (defense's choice) be by a jury of peers
(7) Juries are to remain unbiased throughout the trial
(8) Speedy trials must take place within a reasonable amount of time
A person MUST be told of their charges and given a speedy trial. Not like in this man's life.
Maybe you should avoid a public defendant, as the defense attorney from My Cousin Vinny so aptly proves.
For more info about this very important amendment, click here.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This amendment protects against certain rights that are always in contest or brought up. They are listed here:
(1) Protection from a government who might harass with malicious and fallacious courts
(2) No citizen can be subject to testify against themselves
(3) Due Process: government actions must always follow the rules and guidelines set down by law
A straight-forward, if not highly detailed, amendment, this particular portion of our constitution sees the most screen time in TV shows and movies. Pleading the Fifth, now a very common phrase, spread through the right to not be a witness against their selves. Miranda v Arizona (1966) was the landmark case that led to the extension of the right against a suspects' self-incrimination beginning at their arrest (and the reading of the Miranda rights).
Another, less popular section of this amendment is the protection of citizens' from deprivation of life, liberty, or property. This, however, only extends so far. For a specific example, Lochner v New York (1905) states that state law cannot force limitations on the number of house a business owner can require from his employees. This is a cut against this amendment and allows citizens' deprivation. What do you think about this? Comment and let me know.
Double jeopardy does not apply to Thanksgiving turkeys however.
Maybe the Colonel should have plead the fifth.
For more info about this amendment, check out a good history here.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment, which is of particular importance in this day of policing, protects the rights of citizens, giving more power to "the people". There is also some interesting controversy related to this amendment, specifically when it comes to "Probably Cause" and the Supreme Court case of Weeks v US (1914). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant who's property (which was condemning evidence) was seized without a warrant. This evidence was ruled inadmissible in a court of law, creating what would be know as the Exclusionary Rule. Now, no evidence taken in violation of the 4th amendment can be used in a criminal trial. This loophole can be exploited by criminals to walk, where in other circumstances, they would be jailed. However, as Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.” In this particular political climate, we must remember this and not allow the government to hold what, in other times, would be considered unconstitutional and dangerous power.
A poignant reminder that some government organizations do not subscribe to our Constitutional rights.
Speaking of which... if you're reading this Mr. NSA agent, don't call me... I'm not into booty calls.
For information about the framing of this amendment, click here.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This rather self-explanatory amendment was of vital importance to the Founders and the budding Union. So important in fact, that they even mentioned it in the Declaration of Independence. However, this particular amendment might seem a little aged by today's standards. With army barracks in every major city and the military's ability to set up camp virtually anywhere, some might say that this is a superfluous right in this day and age. What do you think about this? I have not yet made up my mind about this but I see how it could be unnecessary now. Comment and let the discussion begin.
Make sure you know what you're talking about before you start living it.
This kind of quartering was a major problem to the homes of the colonialists.
For more information about the reasons behind this amendment, click here.
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.
This, a highly debated and contested amendment, secures the rights of citizens to legally own guns and other arms. However, like the first amendment, it is not absolute. Criminals and foreign aliens cannot own guns and there was a Supreme Court decision (a 5:4 decision, so it was highly contested) that says the second amendment protects against firearms that are typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Any and all people outside of these parameters cannot legally keep and bear arms.
This amendment is one more example of how the Bill of Rights was a check against the US government and how it protects individual rights from said government. It is my opinion that there should be less restrictions on guns and ownership of them. Like the first amendment, the right to gun use and ownership should not be breached unless there is harm or intention to do harm. Keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (or at least, making it more difficult to posses these guns) presents opportunity for criminals to act with illegally acquired guns. The possession of arms serves (at the very least) as a deterrent from criminals. For example, Oklahoma recently legalized open carry laws which permit concealed carry guns to be carried unconcealed and "open" provided the owner has the required licence (more details of the law here). This was a step in the right direction for Oklahoma as it serves to increase individual rights over the rights of the government. It is not that many people will opt for an open carry, but that they have a choice to do so is where there is movement in the right direction.
A news story in OK that addresses the open carry issue
There are a great many laws pertaining to the owning and operating of firearms in the many states of this Union. I cannot cover them all here but comment and let me know what your thoughts are about it.
While a little extreme, this law student explains his rights as a citizen to carry guns in public.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment is a well-debated and well-practiced set of rights. Generally, the Bill of Rights gives power back to people that was in the hands of the government as stated in the Articles of the Constitution. There are a great many actions that are protected by this amendment but there are an equal amount that are not. Defamatory, inflammatory, and hate speech are exceptions that infringe upon other people's rights so they are not protected by the amendment. Additionally, religion is also protected as long as the members' actions do not infringe upon others' rights: this applies for all amendments. There are two clauses in the freedom of religion: the establishment clause (which says there will not be any establishment of any national religion), and the free-exercise clause (stating that citizens can practice all religions as they choose).
Penn & Teller brazenly practice and explain their rights
A different view on Freedom of Speech and society.
For some more information about this amendment, click here.
