Bill of Rights - Tenth Amendment Rights

What are our Tenth  Amendment rights?

What exactly does the Tenth Amendment say?

“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.”

 

My interpretation of the Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment is pretty cut and dry to me.  It restricts the federal government from expanding powers to things not specifically assigned them in the US Constitution or specifically prohibited to the states.  It further says everything else is reserved for the states or to the people.  The Tenth Amendment seems to conflict with some of the things going on in government today.

Obama Care is in direct violation with the Tenth Amendment.  How can the federal government take over the health care system when the US Constitution does not specifically give then the right to do it.  I believe this decision to regulate health care lies with the states or the people.  Massachusetts lawfully set up a health care system because it is a state.  The federal government is overriding the states authority to maintain a healthcare system already in place by taking it over nationally.  The US Supreme Court already ruled on this, but I do not see how they missed the Tenth Amendment.  It is very clear in what it states.

Our federal government is expanding very rapidly taking over many things and regulating businesses so heavily it is almost impossible to start up a business these days.  If we keep going this direction we will end up being a socialist nation within ten years.  Our economy should collapse withing eight years if we don’t start making the federal government abide by the Tenth Amendment.  If we, as a nation, do not turn this around soon, it will be too late to get things turn around later.  We will fall over a cliff so steep there will be no climbing out.  I love my country and really hate to see us ignore this restriction, the Tenth Amendment, our founding fathers put in place to protect us from just exactly is happening in our country today.

Bill of Rights - Ninth Amendment Rights

 

What are our Ninth  Amendment rights?

The exact wording of the Ninth Amendment is:

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

This is rather cut and dry again.  The Ninth Amendment states that the bill of rights is not all inclusive. Other rights aside from those listed in the bill of rights may exist, and just because they are not listed in the first ten amendments to the US Constitution doesn’t mean they can be violated.  It is basically a statement to let rights expand as necessary, but does not allow for the removal or limitations of any rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

How has the Ninth Amendment been used recently?

The Fourteenth Amendment was put into place to ensure the children of African Americans and Native Americans are considered United States Citizens by being born in the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment coupled with the Ninth Amendment are the grounds used to say the children of illegal immigrants are also citizens if born in our country.

This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is being interpreted that way, so we are granting citizenship to our country base on illegal acts of the children’s parents.  I believe in immigration to our country, but I really feel sorry for the people waiting in line after paying the applicable application fees, that are being delayed entry as a legal immigrant based on the illegal immigrants here in front of them.

Well, the Ninth Amendment is very necessary, but when interpreted an improper way is actually hurting a lot of immigrants waiting in line to become US Citizens.  I hope we can work something out to get the legal immigrant flow back up to where it used to be so these people are not inconvenience anymore than they already have been.

Bill of Rights - Eighth Amendment Rights

What are our Eighth  Amendment rights?

Here is the exact wording of the Eighth Amendment:

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

OK let’s look at the Eighth Amendment restrictions over to see how it protects us as US Citizens.

It restricts courts from setting excessive bails or fines when not warranted according to the severity of the crime and flight risk of the accused.  Then it goes on to restrict the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments on the accused.  A judge cannot sentence a 16 year old to a chain gang prison for shoplifting.  Or the sentence cannot include something like, walking through knee deep snow in shorts for 30 minutes every morning before breakfast.  Or flogging a prisoner every morning before breakfast.  All of these would fall under cruel and unusual punishments.

Why did our founding fathers think it was necessary to put the Eighth Amendment in place?

Remember that many counties in Europe during this period put people in prison for long periods of time when it was not warranted.  A good example of this were the debtor prisons.  If someone could not pay a tax or any other dept, they could be imprisoned until the debt is paid.  The ironic thing about this is that many stayed in prison for years with no way to earn the money to pay the dept while in prison.

Our found fathers also saw the mistreatment of prisoners in Europe.  This is one of the reasons they left their homelands and came to America in search of a better way of life without the fear of being treated terribly by the government.  The long arm of the King of England reach over the ocean though and the mistreatment found it’s way to our shores.  This is one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War.  So they put the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure our citizens were protected from the restrictions listed in the Eighth Amendment.

Bill of Rights - Seventh Amendment Rights

What are our Seventh  Amendment rights?

Here is the exact wording of the Seventh Amendment:

“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.”

 

OK let’s break the Seventh Amendment down to see where any misconceptions may be.

The first segment to the Seventh Amendment (Trial by jury in civil cases) reads:

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”

In any civil case, where the value of the item(s) in question are valued at $20.01 or more, the right to a civil jury trial is in effect.

“…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.”

Remember the Sixth Amendment applies first when a law is broken so the Seventh Amendment only applies secondary to the Sixth Amendment in these cases.  In cases where there is damage to property or something similar that doesn’t directly break a law, the seventh Amendment applies. When a jury trial is held under the Seventh Amendment, anything decided by the jury cannot be later re-examined by another trial, in a US court, except as the rules for common law allow.

Here are two examples of when the Seventh Amendment would apply:

You park your $70,000.00 car near a construction site and a crane malfunction causes the crane to drop an i-beam on the car causing total destruction of the vehicle and no injuries to people.  No laws are broken, but you lost $70,000.00 worth of car through no fault of your own.  In this case you could sue the construction company, by civil jury trial, for the $70,000.000.

If a person steals your car and totally destroys it at a chop shop, the theft and willful destruction of the car would be considered breaking the law, and criminal prosecution under the Sixth Amendment would apply first.  Then, depending on the circumstances, you or your insurance company may be able to also sue the thief under the Seventh Amendment.

Bill of Rights - Sixth Amendment Rights

What is the exact wording of the Sixth Amendment?

The exact wording of the Sixth Amendment is:

"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 defense."

Now let's break the Sixth Amendment down into segments and see what it says:

Hear is the first Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"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..."

Any US Citizen accused of a crime has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, have a public trial, with an impartial jury, within the district the crime was committed, without waiting an unreasonable amount of time for the trial to take place.  This is all pretty self-explanatory and a great deal of this is in our Miranda warning most people associate with the Fifth Amendment as described in my Fifth Amendment post.  Another portion often known as a speedy trial is to prevent US Citizens from being locked up for years without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.  Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure we were never mistreated in this manner as was routinely done in many parts of Europe.

Hear is the Second Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."

Ensures the accused confronts any accusers.  The main reason for this is because a basically honest person usually has a very hard time lying to someones face if they are wrongfully accusing that person of a crime.  It also does the converse and allows the accuser to positively identify the the accused to ensure the correct person is in custody for the crime.  If the proper person is in custody, the accuser will know the actual perpetrator of the crime is punished for the crime.

Hear is the Third Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This segment of the Sixth Amendment is self-explanatory and simply states the accused has the right to an attorney and may gather witnesses through a compulsory process.

Bill of Rights - Fifth Amendment Rights

What does the Fifth Amendment say exactly?

Here is the exact wording of the Fifth Amendment:

“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 offense 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.”

Let’s breakdown segment one of the Fifth Amendment

Segment one of the Fifth Amendment contains quite a bit of information, but is pretty cut and dry in how it breaks down.  The first segment reads:

“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…”

This means that people can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  It makes the exception of cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  What happened to the requirement of Grand Jury presentation of indictment.  It seems our legal system has ventured away from the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.  The military and militias were specifically exempted, due to the need for them often to act quickly during times of combat and heightened tensions.

The second segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”

Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried of the same crime twice.  Our current judicial systems interprets this to mean a suspect cannot be tried for the same crime twice.  That is not what this segment says.  It says the subject cannot be sentenced to loss of life or limb if tried a second time for the same offense.  We are granting criminal that do not get convicted during their trial the right not to be tried again under what we call double jeopardy.

That was not the intent of this segment of the Fifth Amendment.  It protects suspects from the possibility of being tried twice for the same crime with capital punishment hanging over their head on both occasions.  Many courts in Europe would try offenders over many times until they finally got the death penalty conviction they were looking for and then put them to death.  Our founding fathers were attempting to prevent this practice from being used in the US Court systems.  Not to prevent a serial killer from being tried multiple times for the same offense in order to give them life in prison to remove them from society.

The third segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…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…”

This segment of the Fifth Amendment simply says any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.

The last segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I am assuming, since the entire Fifth Amendment is talking about an accused rights, the last segment is still talking about the same.  With this in mind, this segment simply says property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.  Why did our Founding Fathers specify public use (presently called eminent domain) in this segment?  Does that mean, if the property is taken from the accused, but used privately, the accused does not receive compensation?  Or was it understood property could not be taken for private use?

Now let’s put this all together:

People can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried for the same crime twice.  Any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.  Property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.

Where did Fifth Amendment Miranda warnings come from?

In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona the US Supreme Court found that Ernesto Arturo Miranda’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated during police contact and processing of the case.  So the Supreme Court decided to mandate rights advisement prior to questioning of any individual suspected of committing a crime.  Advisement was to consist of both Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights and the court listed them as:

“…The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.”

 

That is the Fifth Amendment.  It is rather long, but lists some very necessary things to ensure our citizens rights are not violated.  We do pass our rights of protection under the law on to legal visitors in our country, as we should.   Anyone illegally in our country should always be treated humanely, but we should not give them all the rights our Constitution reserves for us, the US Citizens.  Some even want to pass our rights on to captive terrorists, which I feel is giving them way too much respect especially those that mistreated and even beheaded any of our citizens.

Bill of Rights - Fourth Amendment Rights

What does the Fourth Amendment say exactly?

The exact wording of the Fourth Amendment is, “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.”  After reading this you must know the Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments protecting us from our government.  Well, except for maybe the Second Amendment.

OK let’s break the Fourth Amendment down to see where any misconceptions may be.

The wording of the Fourth Amendment is self-explanatory and our country has been very good about ensuring the rights in the Fourth Amendment have not been routinely violated until just recently.  Let’s take a look at the first segment:

“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…”

All US Citizens have the right not to be searched unreasonably nor their property seized, in any way, or for any reason, by any government officials (Police, Military, IRS, EPA, Government Investigators, etc.), at all levels (Federal, State, County/Province, City, etc.) without the government official producing a warrant, proving to the US Citizen they have met all these requirements.

1. The government official/agency has gone before a Judge and explained exactly shat they will be searching for and specifically where they will be searching for the item.
2. The government official/agency demonstrated to a Judge, they have probable cause (reasonable belief) that a crime has occurred, that the fruits of the crime are located in a specific location under the accused US Citizen’s ownership or control and the Judge believed the government official had sufficient probable cause to request the Search or Arrest warrant.
3. The Judge has administered an oath or affirmation to the government official to ensure they are being honest in their reporting of the incident to the Judge.

The Fourth Amendment is pretty easy to understand and is very necessary to ensure US Citizens are never taken advantage of by our government like British Citizens during this same era.  Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we, US Citizens, were never under the thumb of the government just due to our politics, financial status or governmental criticisms.  Lets look at the last segment of the Fourth Amendment:

“… and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I’ve already touched on this in the explanation of the first segment of this passage of the Fourth Amendment, because it was hard to leave it out and still make sense in the explanation of the first segment.  Now lets expand on it as necessary.  This segment of the Fourth Amendment mandates the need for the government official to describe where they are going to search and who or what they are going to be searching for to the Judge prior to the Oath or Affirmation.

Why is this segment of the Fourth Amendment so important?

This forces the government official to be logical in what they are requesting so they do not get a blanket search authorization when it is not warranted.  For example, if the investigating official is looking for an automobile, should the Judge allow them to search in the center drawer of the US Citizens dresser?  No way!!!  In this case the Warrant will restrict the search in places the Automobile might logically be found.  That could mean a basement to the house if there is a ramp allowing access, but if it is closed in concrete all the way around, as most basements are, then the search should not include the house at all.  Garages, barns, fields, root cellars or any place the automobile could logically be found must be listed on the Warrant.

If the government official was unaware that a shed was on the property, and it is large enough to conceal the automobile, he/she must return to the Judge (in person or by phone when authorized) to get the shed added to the warrant so it may be legally searched.  There are exceptions to this rule if evidence may be destroyed or removed without immediate action by the government authorities; however, they must be able to prove this at the pretrial hearings or the evidence will be disallowed by the Judge.

What exceptions may we find?

There are other exceptions the the Fourth Amendment like the Automobile Exception.  When a police officer lawfully performs a traffic stop on a US Citizen during normal traffic operations.  An official may search anywhere occupants of the vehicle can lunge or plunge, even the trunk.  This is done for officer safety, after criminals accessed the trunk from the back seat of cars, removed firearms and killed police officers during routine traffic stops.  In these situations a warrant is never obtained and what is found during the search is admissible in court as evidence.

Now let’s take a look at present day occurrences and see how they fit into what the Fourth Amendment states:

Now we have the United States Government with the ability to intercept any and all our telephone and computer communications base on an exception to the Fourth Amendment called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  This is not a bad idea if it was used as originally passed by our Congress.  This act was to be used to intercept terrorist communications in, out and within the our country.  If the government used it in that manner it would be constitutional in most cases, because it would seldom target US Citizens.  As we know, the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.  Now the US government captures large volumes of communications from agencies like AT&T, Verizon and other huge communications conglomerated.  There is no discrimination by the government as to where the communication originates, whether terrorists could be involved in the communications or if it has any bearing on National Security at all.

Our government would never purposefully violate our rights as explained in the Fourth Amendment, right?

Our government has no problem violating our rights.  That has been my experience over the last 54 years.  They are directly violating the Fourth Amendment because the US Government is gathering large amounts of US Citizens communications and saving them for future use.  We, US Citizens, have the right to be safe in our communications with any other US Citizen.  If a call or email originates or is received by a probable terrorist in this country, originates or is received by a probable terrorist outside this county, or originates or is received by a known terrorist nation, it should be saved and held for national security purposes.  There is no excuse for the US Government to have these communications companies save all our (US Citizen’s) communications constantly and turn over a huge numbers of our calls, texts and emails to the government.  I wonder what kind of kickbacks they are getting.

What really bothers me about this is that between 1978 (when all this started) and now I am sure I’ve done something wrong.  Not necessarily illegal, but something that would embarrass me or prevent me from getting a security clearance.  If I bounced a check or considered filing bankruptcy, I would have talk to my family about it either over the phone or though email.  The government has no right to stockpile information like that about any US Citizens.  We seem to be the losers here, because the people we are electing into office are not concerned about this practice of steeling our communications, in fact they keep voting it back in as law.  There is nothing better than getting spit on by people we elect to office.

The big thing is, this is not done to protect our nation form terrorist attacks or any other legal reason.  It is done to illegally (according to the Fourth Amendment) to compile information about US Citizens that may or may not be used later to spark an investigation involving someone who the government should have never had any information about to begin with.  They can be very selective in who they investigate as well.  Example:  If you publicly say something and can prove it that may reflect discredit upon the US President or someone else with power in the Government, they have one heck of a lot of information to blackmail or just discredit you.  If I tried to gather this kind of information about anyone, I would be in prison.  Maybe that is where the government officials and participating communication company  big wigs need to be for violating our Fourth Amendment rights.

Well, I think I got my point across.  Please feel free to comment, I am looking forward to reading your views on the Fourth Amendment.

Take care and God bless you folks!!!