Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
You do not need to look far back into history to find reasons why we need the eighth amendment. There is no end to the cruelty people have inflicted on others. Even our own country has not always done the right thing with methods of execution, fines, and jail conditions.
This is a picture of a Saddam era prison. Just ten years ago this was a place where you would expect to see people tortured for political information, or just as punishment.
I'm very proud to come from a country that doesn't light people on fire or drill through their kneecaps.
The Eighth Amendment should promise me and every American, that even if you break the law and are convicted, you will not be tortured and abused... but it not always done so.
Of course this scene is dramatized... I'll admit that, however there is one known case of someone's head catching fire during an execution. How did this (does this) get by the Eight's Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. It is obviously cruel. If you were suffering on your death bead and wanted to be put out of your misery would you be headed for a bottle of cyanide or the power outlet? Electrocution is obviously more painful than hanging or firing squad, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would find the idea of it pretty unusual.
Maybe people just got too caught up on the new technology, hopefully we won't ever discover how to make micro black holes. Maybe if we did someone would conclude that ripping people apart with a black hole is a humane method of execution.
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 is another one of those amendments that isn't taken seriously at face value, but we wouldn't want to live in a world without it. Judges in courts are in effect agents of the government, but most of us don't' see them that way because they are not politicians. But if the judges and politicians ever banded together to hurt individuals, they could do a lot of damage. Whats the point of the previous amendments, if you took the government to court over financial losses and the judge just dismissed your case?
I think this video kind of shows how easily someone could get ripped off by an aristocratic judge that doesn't care about the people. Thankfully the 7th amendment promises us we will be judged BY the people not only in criminal cases, but significant financial cases too.
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.
My favorite trial movie of all time is 12 angry men. A teenager is one vote away from being convicted after an inept lawyer leaves a void in the defense filled by one member of the jury. He eventually takes the jury from a vote of 11-1 for guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. In the middle of the movie, as the "guilty" group is dropping like flies, one juror exposes the side of everyone you should completely ignore when deciding a man's life. The Sixth amendment promises a trial by an impartial jury, but in a world of whites vs blacks, rich vs poor, east vs wet, north vs south, is that a promise anyone can keep?
This fictional character was lucky, throughout our nation's history there have been far too many real unlucky ones. All too often in this country, justice for a murdered white person bypassed the dry eyed widow, ignored drunken disgruntled business partners, and went straight for the nearest known person of color. We should always remember these stories, like in To Kill a Mocking Bird, and realize how many different kinds of deep prejudice we hold against countless groups of people, because when a false conviction is handed out, everyone loses. The victim, the defendant, the future victims of the real criminal, and the faith we all weakly hold in the criminal justice system suffer in various ways when we ignore reality and embrace vengeance.
Like all laws and amendments in the Bill of Rights, this one is open to be abused by the poor judgment of individual people. Congresses, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidents can all hurt our rights one way or another if they don't take them seriously. However the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is only directly violated by our ignorance and our lack of education.
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.
One thing that comes to mind for me when I read the Fifth Amendment, my first thought is really about Guantanamo bay and the War on Terrorism prisoners there. People seem to be quick to snatch up their constitutions in defense of these war criminals, but it doesn't apply at all. The prisoners are not US Citizens, and they are not being held in the United States. However, does the federal government retain the power to hold them anyway? There is always the quote by Benjamin Franklin on their side, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." but there are two problems with that. Benjamin Franklin was not the Emperor of The United States, everything he ever said can not be considered the law of the land, and secondly, he never actually said that.
I think the government does have the power to permanently imprison enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield or in Jimmy's corn field, based on the language of the Fifth Amendment. The founding fathers seem to have bent over backwards when writing this amendment to ensure the ability of the government to defend themselves. When you consider the motive of islamic terrorists, and the amount of destruction a very small group can do with modern technology, it is clear that this war is just as serious as others.
The other thing that comes to mind is the protection of not being compelled to testify against yourself. From a conservatives point of view, of course this provision is abused, but I would never want to lose this protection. If you can't be compelled to witness against yourself in a trial, it eliminates a major motive to torture defendants. Everyone can agree that it can not be the procedure of our police forces to catch someone, torture them until they "admit what they did", then throw them in jail. Torture in general produces unreliable results and doesn't make us any safer, because while the accused are confessing crimes the real criminals are free to commit more crimes.
People in general don't like how much the criminals are protected by the law. But history seems to show these issues as "all or nothing" types of protections. If we didn't have the 4th 5th and 6th, the police forces would simply be too tempted to take the easy road in investigating and punishing criminals. When police forces do that, everyone loses. In the system we have now, it is not a simple matter of criminals being able to run rampant, but in many places in the world the police are able to run rampant doing whatever they want.
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.
Since the United States government began banning substances like marijuana and cocaine, the fourth amendment has become one of the most called upon among the bill of rights. We should all be honoring the fourth amendment far more than that, because it continues the theme of weakening the power of the agents of government in comparison with the rights of the people.
When I think of the fourth amendment, I think of Tunisia, the Arab Spring, and Mohamed Bouazizi. Bouazizi was a Tunisian street vendor who was repeatedly harassed by police. The last time a policewoman decided to confiscate his possessions on the street Bouazizi went before police headquarters, doused himself with gasoline, and lit himself on fire. The ensuing riots and protests forced the Tunisian president to step down, the first Arab leader to do so this year. While the Arab Spring is not turning out to be a good step towards freedom in the world, the incident that started it is a perfect example of why we need the fourth amendment.
Sane people around the world will always be reluctant to demand legislation to weaken police forces, especially with a world wide news media that is hell bent on igniting a viewer's interest with a five second lead in. So if we lived in a society today that had Tunisia's problem of police corruption, what would the headlines read when someone goes to limit the police? "Senator Doe introduces legislation to make you less safe from criminals."
Thankfully the founding fathers started us off on the right foot, our police officers can't punitively start searching your home just because they don't like you. They can't take away your livelihood until you decide to pay them a bribe... sure, abusing the 4th amendment looks sexy on The Shield, but when you have a million cops doing it, obviously what you get is a corrupt police force.
Instead what we get here in America is a bunch of pseudo-adults who don't appreciate what they have. Like this guy in the video, claiming "his amendments were violated." I'm really getting tired of seeing this everywhere I go. People need to pay attention to the word "reasonable." If you are walking around reeking of an illegal substance, intoxicated with an illegal substance, is it not reasonable to believe you may possess an illegal substance? Frankly, its only unreasonable if police are searching you only with the intention of punishing you or coercing you to do something they want.
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.
The third amendment may seem like another outdated one, but I don't think so. While that exact situation may never happen today, the principal of it is still important. The people of the United States regard their property as uniquely in their possession relative to other countries. Just think of the "American Dream," owning land is a cornerstone of that. Owning land was one of the main drives of settling the west.
When you consider the fact that the founding fathers could have just as well set up a fudel system as a federal system, the third amendment seems much more significant.
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.
The Second Amendment to the constitution may be the most hated among some in the country. While freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press are taken up by everyone, many in this country have little interest to invoke their second amendment rights. As the country continues to become more polarized and urbanized the 2nd amendment may someday fall victim to its own bizarre language and changing times. That day will be a tragic one for freedom and the American way of life.
When some read those words, it brings up antiquated images of pioneers pressed into service to fight some red-coats. Some people mistakenly think this is the only application of the right to bear arms (speaking of confused, google "revolution" and look at the images it pulls up). The 2nd amendment still applies today just as well as it always has. It perpetuates a culture of independence (not from the British, I'm talking REAL independence) and personal responsibility, allows people to defend themselves and their possessions, and is still a deterrent from tyranny.
The United States is, and always will be, a little different than other western nations. Our country had to be explored, conquered, and subdued by our culture and beliefs, and it never would have happened without firearms. Today, almost every inherent good our country has stems from our pioneer spirit. We value responsibility, hard work, and independence more than our European counterparts, and while our culture has some sins in the past, we should all be fighting to preserve our unique position in world history.
The far left tends stereotype gun-owners as irresponsible fools who enjoy killing things way too much, but I disagree. The values firearms teaches young people can not be contested. While many children are learning the value of life from killing sprees on Grand Theft Auto IV, others learn a much more realistic lesson about how fragile life is while hunting. It teaches a lesson that once life is taken, it never comes back in the real world. While teenagers in France are not seen as responsible enough to drive anything more than a scooter, it is not uncommon for a 10 year old in the United States to be trusted with a deadly weapon to go skeet or target shooting for fun.
Independence was not a privilege in our country's pioneer days, it was simply a fact of life. If you were attacked by bandits, Indians, or anything else on the planes of Kansas in the 1850's, the only police officers that are going to have anything to do with you are the ones that may read about your corpse or lost possessions in a news paper. While the urban populous of today may pride themselves on the fact a "peace" officer is only a phone call and a 40 minute wait away. However, 40 minutes or 5 minutes is often too long for victims to wait for help.Possession of a gun of course does not mean you're never going to be on the losing end of a confrontation, but there is a reason why concealed carry laws are sweeping the country. Concerns that every fist fight will morph into a fist fight have found to be baseless, considering only 10% of firearms used in crimes are legally owned by the criminal.
Finally, the main reason for keeping the 2nd amendment is to deter tyranny, not necessarily from the US government, but from any invading military as well. By allowing the people to own firearms we can pretty much rest easy that no foreign army could occupy the United States. The Constitution was written in the wake of the revolution, and the founding fathers had no idea when that revolutionary spirit would need to be called upon again.
Although we do live in an extremely stable political environment, we can not guarantee what happens in the future. It is not too far fetched to imagine a future where war or an economic crisis prompts the federal government to take too much power. If we hang on to the 2nd amendment, we will always know any steps the federal government takes in that direction will be taken cautiously.
