It is considered that the first ten amendments are the most important for the US Constitution (Anastaplo 1995). I suppose that ‘Freedoms’ constitute the vital part of law which protects citizens and the state from unfair and discriminative practices. These rights are: “Freedom of Religion; Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Assembly; Separation of Church and State” (Anastaplo 1995, p. 47).
At the end of the 19th century, there was very little opportunity at the Constitutional Convention for Madison to support a bill of rights of the conventional sort. The Convention’s charge was to enlarge, not to restrict, the powers of the federal government. In order to conform with American public opinion favoring he most important rights of all, Madison proposed to insert in Article 1, Section 9, a long list of further exceptions to the power of the federal government.
These amendments were very important because Americans inherited the common law as a legacy to be used selectively, if at all. The Revolution freed Americans to make their own distinctive political culture, one consistent with their unique history and republican ideals. A firm belief that American’s time had come and it had been given the opportunity to regenerate the political world infused Madison’s conception of the separation of religion and politics. The secular sword and religious faith ought always to be kept separate so that each realm might flourish to the benefit of humanity (Anastaplo 1995).
Abolition Slavery and Granting Women a Right to Vote
Another important amendment was an abolition of slavery. According to the US Constitution, slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment (December 18, 1865) which states that: ”Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” (Anastaplo 1995, p. 168). This amendment opened new opportunities for citizens and the state to create a democratic government and stable political system. Before this amendment, the “real difference of interests” lay not between the small and large states but between the northern and southern states, which were divided over slavery and its consequences.
Another important amendment (19th Amendment) granted women a right to vote. This amendment came into force in 1920, and states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” ” (Anastaplo 1995, p. 190).
Throughout American history women fought for freedom and equal rights with men. They expressed ideology held by most women around the world as they knew their sacrifices would be acknowledged and valued by future generations. Taking into account its significance, meaning, and impact on further generations of women, it is possible to say that it was the most important wave in American feminism movement because during this period of time women were recognized as a strong political force equal to men. The right to vote was constitutionally approved.
Conclusion
The 1, 13 and 19 Amendments were the most important for the American people because they could be compared with a “revolution” that changed the perception of the world and the role of American citizens in society and their relations with the state. These amendments opened great opportunities for different social classes in all spheres of social and political life. Today, individual freedom of Americans means much more than the absence of physical coercion but an equal social status and freedom. These amendments have changed the life and destiny of all American people and the political direction of domestic and foreign policy.
References
Anastaplo, G. (1995). The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The United States of America is ranked top globally in almost all sectors of the economy. It is also believed to be the pace setter in matters pertaining to law. Most of the other countries have been emulating the judiciary and legislative functions of the United States of America.
This is because of the belief that they possess a constitution that is effective and accommodative for each and every person .Despite this constitution being among the oldest constitutions to be written that is in the year 1787, it is applicable to any country in the world.
This is because most nations of the world especially those that do not have their own constitutions use the American constitution. It is for this reason that the constitution of the United States of America is termed as its supreme law. That is, it controls the relationship between the leaders of state and the citizens of the country (Smith, 2010, p.1).
There are three branches of government which make up the constitution. We have the executive, the legislature and finally the judiciary that is manned by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is designated to be the head and governor of the judiciary which is part of the law making committee. All constitutions in the world will usually elaborate on the functions and duties of each branch and the American constitution is no exception.
Provisions of the First Amendment
The Supreme Court is thus responsible for making any amendments on the constitution when it is necessary. The first amendments made on the constitution of the United States of America in the year 1789 concerned the bill of rights.
This entailed the right to peaceful demonstrations, freedom of speech, the press freedom, freedom of expression, the right to dissent and freedom of religion just to mention but a few.
Since the original constitution did not have provisions for these bills of rights, amendment was thus necessary to allow these provisions. These provisions had to be made so as to accommodate all the citizens into one peaceful nation. This was done because of the mere reason that as human beings the American citizens needed to have the freedom and rights they required.
Examples of the Supreme Court cases
The Supreme Court handled so many cases during the first amendment. The cases that the Supreme Court heard and interpreted were categorized into various groups according to the clauses of the bill of rights. Some of the cases include the following;
Case concerning freedom of press
The Supreme Court handled so many cases during and after the first amendment of the original constitution (Stewards, 2010, p.2). One of the cases involved the New York Times Company versus the United States of America concerning the freedom of press. The United States restricted the New York Times Company from publishing information about the war in Vietnam at that time. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of prior restraint to make a ruling on the case (Owen, 2000, p.1). This could not have been the situation after the first amendments as the bill of rights had a clause on the freedom of press whereby one can publish whatever information.
Case concerning freedom of expression
An example under this category of cases was that of Whitney versus California in the year 1927. In this case Whitney was accused and found guilty of launching a party which the nation had fears that it could overthrow the government. This was one of the greatest cases ever heard as it was ruled by the famous Justice Louis D. Brandeis who wrote the greatest defense of freedom of speech.
In his ruling, he argued that people are bound to be set free to express their own opinions. This was due to the mere reason that the citizens who had struggled hard to achieve the independence of the country were not cowards. They were strong willed and were not afraid of any changes in the political climate.
Case concerning the right to dissent
The citizens of a nation are allowed to protest in a bid to fight their rights. The case of West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnette falls under this category (Smith, 2010, p.1). This was a very exciting case as it involved school children who had failed to give a flag sauté. Flag salutation in the United States of America was a requirement of the law.
However, the children of the Barnette School could participate in the flag salutation as their religion did not allow such. The ruling was thus made in favor of the school and therefore allowed to dissent and make their issues known publicly without any fears.
Rights that the Constitution provides you as an American citizen
Each and every citizen of a nation has their own rights under the constitution of the same country. That is the same reason that the before any constitution is applicable, it has to be voted and analyzed by the citizens so as to ensure its acceptance.
After the analysis, the constitution can now be put in place since it has been accepted by the majority if not all the citizens of that country. When the American constitution was first put in place, it had omitted the bill of rights and so had o be amended so that the citizens could have their rights and freedom.
The original constitution only had three provisions concerning the rights of the citizens (Lutz, 1994, p.72). Among these was the clause that one had to prove in a court of law before the authority so as to hold and detain someone. After the first amendment, we the American citizens attained so much freedom and rights granted by the law.
Some of these include; the freedom of speech whereby one has the ability to speak out their minds on any issue. This is of great importance especially when one is being oppressed or in detention.
The right to the freedom of religion is also important as there are a variety of denominations and religious sects. This right gives every citizen to join whatever group they wish and worship as well as practice their sect’s practices freely.
The other right is that of the freedom to petition the government, this happens in case where an individual or a group of people think that the government is not taking the right cause of direction. As citizens of America we are allowed to make a petition against the government so as to get full explanation of whatever actions and decisions made.
The other one is the freedom of assemblage whereby the people are allowed to assemble in whatever forums as well as make their own decisions in such meetings without restrictions or interference. All the aforementioned rights greatly changed the situation of America from what is was before the current position. As a matter of fact it greatly improved and changed the living conditions of the American citizens.
Responsibilities that the Constitution provides you as an American citizen
On the other hand, the constitution provides responsibilities to the American citizens (Alley, 2008, p.2). The constitution of a country should be responsible for its citizens. This is the same way the American constitution has a number of responsibilities on its citizens.
Among these is that the American citizens have the responsibility of managing their own matters either civil or local. Through this, the citizens are not to be intruded in whatever they do in their private life.
In the same way, the citizens are bound to pay taxes and duties to the government as a way of providing income to the government. Citizens who are patriotic will openly disclose their income for taxation in the role of responsible for their own country. The citizens also have the responsibility of protecting their own constitution.
This means that they are ready to fight for any process of interfering with the constitution. This is a civic duty as before a new citizen is nationalized he or she recites an oath in which they promise to protect and defend the American Constitution. A civic duty literally means that the citizens obey the laid down rules and laws of the land.
Apart from the mentioned responsibilities, the citizens are bound to be active in the democratic process of the state. Each citizen is therefore entitled to be aware of any campaign processes and the campaigning candidates. The citizens should also be familiar with the set election day of the country.
The knowledge of this information by the citizens encourages most of them to be present during such sessions and functions. By participating in these, the results obtained are usually largely represented hence being able to make decisions that are suitable for the larger part of the population of the country.
Why did each case need to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court is a major court that handles only the sensitive and the more serious cases especially those that relate to the government or constitution of the nation. In short, the Supreme Court is an original jurisdiction as well as a court of appeal.
The constitution clearly defines the two classes of cases that can be heard in the Supreme Court (Lutz, 1994, p.74).The classes are the cases concerning ambassadors or other dignitaries in the government and cases affecting the state.
Therefore the cases during the first amendment had to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court as they all related to matters relating to the constitution of the United States of America thus the whole state. The hearing and handling of each of the cases was an obligation by law.
How the Supreme Court’s decision in each case continue to affect the rights of American citizens today
The Supreme Court was the only court where cases relating to the matters of the constitution were heard and ruled. So when these cases on the first amendment were presented for hearing in this court the end result was bound to have several effects both in the long run and short run.
In the short run, effects were mostly felt by either the defendant or the accused. The effects have in the long run affected the current citizens of America. Depending on the ruling made, the resulting effects may either be positive or negative. Negative effect may come about when the provisions for the bill of rights are not followed up to date and thus oppressing the citizens of America.
Such ruling on cases meant that the American citizens do not posses any rights as per the constitution which is against the law. On the other hand, ruling on cases where the provisions of the first amendments were followed meant that the law was observed to the last point. This therefore meant that the American citizens were given their rights as per the constitution.
Since the Supreme Court handled an endless list of cases during the first amendment the decision made on each case led to different types of effects on the current citizens of America.
This is because some of the Judges today use some of these cases as examples during their course of study. It is for the same reason that they may at times apply these in their daily practice hence leading to a repeat of the same.
This repetition is what now leads to the effect being felt by the current citizens of the United States of America. A clear justification is from the aforementioned examples of cases whereby justice did not seem to be applied in some of the cases. So in circumstances where a repeat of the same is done, then there has to be some cry from the oppressed party in the case.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court is of great importance in any country. This can be seen in the role it played during the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. The amendments had to be made so as to fulfill the citizens’ desire and wish to live in a nation of freedom and rights.
The provisions of the first amendments which circled around the bill of rights for example the right to dissent, freedom of speech, expression and the freedom of press were also of great importance (Owen, 2000, p.1). This was because it gave the citizens a sense of belonging in their own country as their issues were attended to.
Another advantage of the first amendments was that of interpretation of the citizens’ rights and responsibilities. The hearing and interpretation of the first amendment cases also had its effects on the lives of the current Americans.
It has always been said that the past is able to predict the future; this statement is practical when it comes to the constitution of the United States of America. This is because it is from the past that they were able to realize their rights and responsibilities as citizens of America as per the constitution.
A reflection of how the United States of America conducted the first amendment is a good lesson to the other nations of the world from which they follow suit. The process was democratic yet peaceful and in the end successful as it gave the country an improved version of the constitution which accommodated all the citizens.
Reference List
Alley, R. (2008). Thomas Jefferson. James Madison and the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Web.
Lutz, D. (1994). Toward a theory of constitutional amendment. Journal pp.67-78.
The United States Constitution establishes the basic rules regarding case processing, outlines pre-trial and trial procedures, the role of Jury and a Grand Jury, safeguards the rights of the convicted, and covers such issues as double jeopardy and the death penalty. The principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States are considered fundamental. However, some of these principles are vague in meaning and can be interpreted differently. This fact led to the establishment of the Supreme Court as the highest authority which can interpret the meaning of constitutional rights and principles, and enforce this interpretation onto lower courts.
The Exclusionary Rule
The legal principle called the Exclusionary Rule is the result of the Supreme Court interpretation of the constitutional right of the United States citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (Dempsey, 2016). The ambiguity as to what consider “unreasonable” led to several appellate cases that changed the law of criminal procedure regarding police searches and evidence.
One of the four pivotal cases is Weeks v. United States, a case in which the Supreme Court decided that gathering of evidence without a warrant in a private residence is a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Dempsey, 2016). In Weeks v. United States, the police gathered the evidence used in court without a warrant. Fremont Weeks appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided that warrantless seizure of evidence in such circumstances was unconstitutional on a federal level.
In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, the issue of illegally seized evidence application in court was decided by the Supreme Court (Dempsey, 2016). Silverthorne Lumber Co. was prosecuted for tax fraud after the tax books were illegally seized and copied by the prosecutors. The Supreme Court decided that illegal evidence could not be used in court. This ruling later became known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (Dempsey, 2016).
Another pivotal case in Wolf v. Colorado, in which the Supreme Court decided whether exclusionary rule had to be applied in state courts (Dempsey, 2016). The Supreme Court decided that the Exclusionary Rule was not a part of the constitutional right outlined in the Fourth Amendment. As such, it could be applied in federal courts only. In part, the decision was the result of the fact that states had their own laws regarding warrantless searches by the police, albeit ineffective in deterrence.
The Mapp vs. Ohio case made the Exclusionary Rule applies to both state and federal courts. In this case, the defendant, Dollree Mapp, was accused of possessing sexually explicit materials, which were found when the police searched Mapp’s house. However, they searched the house on a suspicion that a suspect was inside (Mapp v. Ohio (1961), n.d., para. 2).
The defendant appealed her conviction because her rights to possess the materials were governed by the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court ruled her innocent because her house was searched without a warrant (Mapp v. Ohio (1961), n.d., para. 3). As a result, today the evidence gathered in violation of the United States constitution is considered inadmissible nationwide.
Stop and Frisk
Stop and frisk is a term that describes “the detaining of a person by law enforcement officers for investigation, accompanied by a superficial examination […] to discover weapons, contraband, or other objects relating to criminal activity” (Dempsey, 2016, p. 576). The policy of stop and frisk is a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio case.
In Terry v. Ohio, several individuals were charged with carrying concealed weapons after a police officer had performed a surface search of their clothing on the grounds of their suspicious behavior (Terry v. Ohio, n.d., para. 5). The defense argued that the search was a violation of The Fourth Amendment; however, the Supreme Court decided that the search can be performed without a warrant if it is prompted by suspicious behavior (Terry v. Ohio, n.d., para. 5). The concept of reasonable suspicion was s further The following five conditions for stop and frisk were outlined by the Supreme Court:
An unusual conduct must be present;
The police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a person might carry a weapon;
The police officer must identify themselves;
The police officer must make a reasonable inquiry;
If the suspicion still holds, the police officer must search the outer layer of a person’s clothes for weapons (Dempsey, 2016, p. 422).
Stop and frisk policy was further developed after Terry v. Ohio. In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Supreme Court ruled that only immediately recognizable weapons can be legally seized under this policy (Dempsey, 2016, p. 423). The concept of suspicious behavior was developed in Illinois v. Wardlow case, which described the suspicious behavior as being present in a criminalized area and fleeing when the police arrive (Dempsey, 2016, p. 423).
The Miranda Warning
The United States Constitution establishes a fundamental right of the not to self-incriminate. In Miranda v. Arizona case, it was established that the police must warn the defendant about their rights before questioning (Miranda v. Arizona,n.d., para. 2). The Miranda warning has interpreted by the Supreme Court in later cases, including United States v. Patane and Missouri v. Seibert.
In the first case, the Supreme Court clarified that physical evidence did not have to be suppressed if the law enforcement personnel failed to warn the defendant of their rights (Dempsey, 2016, p. 443). In the second case, the defendant gave two statements during the interrogation, one of which was given before the Miranda warning. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of two-tier interrogation was unconstitutional and dismissed the second statement.
Maryland State Law
In addition to the United States Constitution and federal laws, state laws are established by states and some of them describe the practice of criminal procedure. The Maryland law allows for the DNA sample of the defendant to be obtained and saved in a database.
In Maryland v. King, the defendant’s DNA samples were taken without a warranted when he was arrested on assault charges (Brower & Reimer, 2014). The DNA samples matched those obtained in a rape exam a few years earlier. The defendant claimed that the warrantless collection of DNA samples violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise and affirmed the legitimacy of the Maryland Law (Brower & Reimer, 2014).
Conclusion
The United States is a democratic country that relies on the rule of law to establish justice and protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. The rights of the United States citizens are outlined in the constitution, which contains several fundamental principles regarding criminal procedure. The Supreme Court is the only court that can interpret the principles outlined in the constitution. A series of landmark cases of the 20th century had a significant impact on the law of criminal procedure.
References
Brower, G., & Reimer, N. (2014). Maryland v. King: Possibly The Most Important Criminal Procedure Case in Decades.
Dempsey, J. S. (2016). An Introduction to Policing, 8th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online].
Judicial pronouncements have a very strong impact on the lives of citizens of free countries, such as the UK, since those judgments create precedents or case law and therefore create the future legal course of action. Ronald Dworkin states that the true propositions should relate to the principles of fairness and justice because of the process providing excellent constructive legal practice interpretations of the community.
Dworkin’s Law of Integrity underlines the fact that law’s optimism is considered to be conceptual. He states that law claims are always constructive; law as integrity demands the testament of the judge as to the decisions of the society. His theories have been instrumental in the authoring of an original and highly influential legal rubric that grounds facets of law into morality and possesses the uncanny ability to bind philosophical ideas and tenets with concrete moral and ethical value systems. Dworkin’s theory seeks to consider the issues relating to legal jurisprudence and the impacts such decisions have upon society as a whole and the parties in particular.
We are presented with the case in which law and emotional injuries interact. We can observe the consequences of the accident, which appeared to be fatal for its victims; the involvement in the case where the emotional injuries are awarded is regarded from the theory of Dworkin. Each case is considered to be unique and needs to be treated differentially, and it would not be in the fitness of things to provide prescriptions to court judgments.
Over the years, laws changed, established customs and legal precedents have become obsolete, and newer and more appropriate laws have superseded earlier decisions. Even in similar cases, judges have passed verdicts that do not complement each other. This is because they have taken recourse to the merits of each case, and the deliberations of the prosecution and the defense, rather than taken recourse to legal precedents and the prevailing legal provisions since clauses are also subject to caveats and riders.
While the decision of the judges needs to be based on perceptions and interpretations, it cannot afford to be positivist-oriented: there may not be mitigating circumstances, and yet legal authors of justice are constrained to provide a verdict in proportion to the extent of crime. The case under analysis argues that emotional injuries had occurred about two hours later while in usual situations they are to be observed at the time and place of the accident.
Lords Wilberforce and Edmund-Davies of HOL believed that foreseeability of psychiatric injury was not the only criteria. There must be other considerations, based on matters such that who could bring the action, the need for psychic injury to emanate from the scene of the accident, and what could have precipitated mental state warranting compensation; it must come from the plaintiff’s senses, spurred by a chain of events and not from information gained through third parties. However, Lords Bridge and Scarman just followed the foreseeability tests. (Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness)
The law as integrity does not try to evoke the ideals of lawmakers, or politicians, who enact them. It is meant to dispense justice, as viewed pragmatically and contextually in given case situations where the judges are duty-bound to render justice to the aggrieved and retribution to the guilty. While it is an accepted axiom of law that the innocent should not be punished, it is equally important that the guilty need be brought before the process of law, otherwise, the very institution of law stands to be undermined. The Law of Integrity seeks to enforce clarity and due procedure of law in court cases.
Dworkin has rejected the doctrines of Positivism since he considers that law needs to be much more than just a set of formal guidelines – it needs to tackle moral and philosophical issues emanating from jurisprudence relating to the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of individuals under attendant guidelines and moral undertones. Over the years, judicial proceedings have undergone rapid changes based on progressive arguments, witnesses, evidence, and exhibits produced by parties.
Thus, it may be reasoned that judges need to interpret the Constitution in the light of essential political and ethical ideologies as based on sound logic, through their imaging upon our legal systems and governance. The case of Mrs. McLoughlin raised major problems and hesitations in the law system; thus, this case approval can encourage much more lawsuits for the emergence of emotional injuries. The liability recognition according to the Court of Appeal would lead to adverse consequences in the community.
The different views on the state law and legal contradictions as to the new trial raised the question of the position of the moral principle in passing the verdict. Here we can observe the principles of the law of integrity introduced by Ronald Dworkin. The avoiding of the Positivist position is considered to be an important element in Dworkin’s considerations. The fairness and justice in the trial verdict of Mrs. McLoughlin would mean that legal practice is in a better position than it is accepted by society. To award compensation for emotional injuries would mean to contradict the law principles and follow personal experience and provide constructive interpretation of the case in terms of moral principles.
Judiciary systems are duty-bound to inculcate values of honesty, justice, and fair play and this must be evident in their pronouncements, irrespective of any extraneous circumstances, or impeding factors. Just as the crimes and criminal behaviors have undergone several changes, laws must be updated and graded to meet the challenges of the 21st century and the future. Dworkin advocates that judges need to use their intellect and discriminative abilities to seek the legitimacy of regulation in legal proceedings and persevere to arrive at the truth, however, well it may be camouflaged, or hidden.
The commitment of the jurisprudence in resolving deadlocks has to be viewed in the larger context of delivering speedy justice, with overall benefits to societal norms and dictates. According to Ronald Dworkin, there are no set legal templates to be used for cases. What is of paramount importance is that courts provide satisfactory solutions to legal problems and protect one party or group of individuals against the incursions of the other.
Law, according to the theory of Dworkin, is considered to be the catalog of rules having dominion over particular discrete behavior theatre. It is an integral part of our life; law’s empire can be defined by social attitude rather than the power of territory. The system of law should compulsorily stick to the moral and ethical experience in the trial process as Dworkin states. He considers that his theory is the background of major legal knowledge because it covers the main rules and principles of the legal jurisprudence of the society. Laws are to be applied keeping the best interests of the parties in particular and society in general.
These facts stated by Dworkin have been proved in the real legal processes such as the one under analysis. The theory principles were involved in the true legal trial and proved the importance of Dworkin’s ideas in the system of law.
Dworkin’s Theory of Interpretivism is a major tenet of legal jurisprudence – the laws need to be interpreted and enforced, and not challenged or rejected on evidence-based judgments. Yet most courts need to provide evidence-based judgments. Law as integrity demands complete testing of the judge’s interpretations of political structures network and community decisions. Law as integrity presents the better justification of the legal practice and better fit with.
The theory is related to the main virtues of the law system such as fairness and justice. Dworkin states that the community should live according to the principles of integrity accepting it as one of the major virtues. The case provided a vivid example of how a skilled judge could refer to the law of integrity. It is important to state that according to the position of the theory the law of integrity could be used in such basic types of serious cases as the one under statutes, at common law, and under the Constitution.
The main concern of the case was the identification of the branching points concerning the legal argument providing the opinion division regarding the principles of the law of integrity. The theory of Dworkin highlights the fact that the system of law cannot be limited and exhausted only by strict rules and principles. The law of integrity in Dworkin’s interpretation is considered to be the way to “legal reconstruction” and the domination of the main virtue in the legal processes.
In conclusion, it should be stated that we have managed to examine the theory of Dworkin which seeks to concentrate on the issues relating to legal jurisprudence and the impacts such decisions have upon society as a whole and the parties in particular. The analysis of the case, in particular, has shown that some definitely complicated trials which involve additional experience and skills could influence the judicial system of the whole society.
The theory of Dworkin proved that the decisions made in the Court are to be based not only on the professional knowledge of the law but on personal skills and experience in order not to make a grave mistake in the process of the case analysis. Dworkin managed to illustrate the Legal Positivism refusal considering the case peculiarities; the paper has shown that the court process is not just a formal guideline, because moral and ethical norms of the community should always be taken into account.
References
Prisen, Holberg. Presentation of Ronald Dworkin. 2007. Web.
Jones, Michael. Liability for Psychiatric Illness – More Principle, Less Subtlety. Web.
Beltmon, C. Philosophical Problems in the Law, 4th Edition. 2005. Pages 111-119.
If a person should live according to the ethical norms, what principles should be reflected in the Constitution of the country to regulate the development of the whole nation? The principles which are presented in the Constitution of the USA are the significant components of the Americans’ national identity.
From this point, the Constitution is the major source of the basic norms according to which the life of an average American is organized, and in relation to which foreigners make definite considerations about the country and its ideals.
Thus, the US Constitution is still relevant and important for Americans because it regulates the main aspects of the people’s life within the country, presents the fundamental principles on which the governmental structure is based, and discusses the concepts of justice, welfare, and liberty as the most important for Americans.
That is why, the relevance of the Constitution can be assessed only with references to the ideals and principles which are emphasized in it without concentrating on the year of its adoption. In spite of the fact every country has its own Constitution, the US Constitution is the symbol of the American freedom, and it is the base for realizing the ‘American dream’.
Those norms, standards, laws, and principles which are stated in the US Constitution are so important that the nation does not feel the necessity to make significant changes in the text of the Constitution or adopt the new variant.
The relevance depends on the currency, and those principles which are reflected in the Constitution are still current. There are few persons who can argue the significance of equality or freedom for everyone (Hennessey and McConnell). Nevertheless, it is impossible to reject the idea that times change, and definite alternations can be made in the Constitution.
From this point, the system of amendments emphasizes not the imperfectness of the first variant of the Constitution, but the vision of the Federalists who developed the Constitution which can be discussed as appropriate to respond to the realities of the 21st century (Farrand).
The Constitution is the supreme law which is based on the unique rules and norms. These norms help the nation realize its inimitable characteristics which accentuate the national identity (Beeman; Hennessey and McConnell). Thus, the ideals of democracy and liberty are the main points according to which it is possible to distinguish the position of an American when he or she discusses a certain problem (Jordan).
These concepts can be examined as the ruling force of the country on its way to the further development. The USA became the synonym of the progress many years ago when the country became the world leader in relation to a lot of criteria, and the rules and notions which are stated in the Constitution contributed to this process significantly.
The USA is the land where dreams can become true, and a person can face a lot of opportunities for their realization. These associations are the results of the country’s policy which is based on the principles fixed in the Constitution. It is important to focus on the fact that the US Constitution can be discussed as relevant and useful till these associations and ideals are alive and help people to create the world of their dream, basing on the democratic ideals, concepts of liberty, justice, and equality.
Works Cited
Beeman, Richard. The Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution: A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from The Federalist Papers. USA: Penguin Books, 2010. Print.
Farrand, Max. The Fathers of the Constitution; a Chronicle of the Establishment of the Union. USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012. Print.
Hennessey, Jonathan, and Aaron McConnell. The United States Constitution: A Graphic Adaptation. USA: Hill and Wang, 2008. Print.
Jordan, Terry. The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It. USA: Oak Hill Publishing Co., 1999. Print.
Human beings have been governed by both written and unwritten laws for as long as they have existed. Many states of the world, in the course of civilization, have had their laws written and re-written to suit the demands and challenges of different times. A constitution can be defined as a clear set of rules and regulations for any given legitimate government (Vile 2). It is usually published as a written book or document after the codification process has been done.
The use of a constitution is to enumerate and draw clear/non-contradictory limits of the existing powers and privileges of a given political entity. The US constitution was written in 1787, ratified the following year and has been operational since 1789 with 27 amendments by 1992 (Vile 7). The research paper seeks to explore the Right to bear arms and the Right of search and seizure as stipulated in the US constitution.
Right to Bear Arms
The 27th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in July 1992 while the first ten were ratified on December 15, 1791(Vile 10). The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are commonly referred to as the Bills of Rights.
Bills of rights were entrenched into the constitution in order to ensure that certain specific rights were legally acknowledged by the US government. Article V of the original text of the US Constitution provides for its amendment. The Right to Bear Arms is contained in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution (Vile 103).
The bill enumerates a well regulated militia as being crucial for a free state, and the right of citizens to keep and bear Arms. This amendment has stirred heated debate since it was ratified. This is because it raises concerns of whether it enumerates the protection of individual’s rights to own arms or it refers strictly to the people’s right to own arms collectively through a well maintained military service (Vile 104).
In constitutional context, “arms” refers to the different types of weapons while the term to “bear arms” implies the right to wage war on an enemy. This provision seems to contradict other federal restrictions on the rights to own firearms as provided in the constitution.
It was on June 26, 2008 that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on a tight margin of 5-4 that citizens of the District of Columbia have an individual right to keep and bear handguns in order to ensure their safety while at home (Vile 106). This ruling was in the case involving District of Columbia and Heller. The court, on the other hand, upheld the fact that the federal restriction on the possession and bearing of firearms is constitutional. Despite the provision of the federal constitution through the Second Amendment, the fifty states have their own constitutions which stipulate their interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
In the modern context, three models of interpreting this provision exist. The first one is known as the collective model, and proposes that the right to keep and bear firearms is solely for collective purposes as opposed to individual.
The second is called the modified collective model which argues that the bill refers to individuals who are service in the regulated militia. The third model, the one applied by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above, is the individual-rights model (Vile 108).
It holds that individuals should be allowed to possess and bear arms, just as much as the right to free speech is provided for in the First Amendment. This claim, however, is criticized by Nadine Strossen who warns that the provisions are not absolute and should be subjected to reasonable restrictions (Vile 109).
From the above discussion, we can conclude that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is still at the center of debate, both at the political as well as at the court level. Generally we note that the constitution has and will continue to play a central role in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the independent States.
Right of Search and Seizure
This right is provided for in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Amendment stipulates the people’s right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unwarranted searches and seizures (Vile 137).
The upholding of individuals’ privacy is central to this amendment. The Amendment specifies that no searches or seizures should be made, but upon credible cause, backed by pledge or declaration, and describing the specific place to be investigated, and the individuals or things to be held in custody.
This amendment applies directly to criminal justice. It holds that arrests and searches of individuals, homes, and other private premises should be made by a warrant (Vile 139). This seeks to put a neutral magistrate between the police and the citizen, thus protecting any suspect from unwarranted search and seizure.
Moreover, the Fourth Amendment has regulated the kind of evidence that is brought in any given case in the US courts. It has resulted in the prohibition of illegally obtained evidence.
This implies that the prosecutor ought not to violate the local search and seizure laws. In the United States, the provision has evolved to include the rejection of evidence obtained as a result of an unwarranted search, even if not found in the course of the illegal search (Vile 140).
This new doctrine is referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree which has been extended to other bills of rights stipulated in the US Constitution.
The modern usage of search and seizure, especially in US courts, has been informed by three crucial questions. Firstly, it is probed whether the police conducted any search or whether they did seize any individual or property.
Secondly, the action by the police must be legally justifiable; there must have been a probable cause or a reasonable suspicion. Lastly, the process used by the police is important- they should either obtain permission from the magistrate before searching and seizing or they can search and explain their actions later in a suppression court hearing (Vile 146).
The challenge facing many courts nowadays is the ability to clearly distinguish between what constitute legal “searches” and “seizures.” However, probable cause and reasonable suspicion remain the acceptable standards today that regulate any “search” or “seizure” by the police.
The implementation of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment has faced major loopholes especially when it comes to polices’ actions. The issue of obtaining warrants from magistrates has been regarded as a sham since the magistrate just confirms or “rubber-stamps” the intentions of the police.
Virtually all search warrant applications by the police have always been granted. The risk of racial discrimination during “searches” and “seizures” has been on the rise, especially in cases involving drug trafficking and the ultimate infringement of privacy (Vile 153). Hence, a lot need to be done to uphold the actual intensions of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Conclusion
The two modifications made to the US Constitution discussed in the research have played a key role in shaping the criminal justice system in America. They have protected the citizens from the excesses of the federal government and its agencies.
However, the research has also pointed out the loopholes that are still inherent in the provisions, especially in the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. More effort should be made to clarify the express provisions of the bills of rights if the US citizens are to fully benefit from the Amendments made over two centuries ago.
It is the duty of the U.S. Armed Forces to protect the country from both internal and external threats yet few people seem to realize that the basis for such responsibilities is not due to orders from the president or that of Congress but rather it is a result of a sworn oath to protect the Constitution.
The Constitution itself is greater than any single branch of government however it is still vulnerable to corruption from within and as such it is the duty of each and every military officer to ensure that such corruption is stamped out.
On the other hand, it must be mentioned that though it is the duty of the military to protect the Constitution it is only through the Constitution itself and its various amendments that the military was even brought into being in the first place For example, it is only through the powers given to it by the constitution that Congress is able to authorize the creation of the military as well as control its budget and it is only through Congressional action that war can be declared (McCarthy, 2011).
It must be noted though that the constitution also happens to give the President significant powers in terms of being the commander and chief of the Armed Forces in times of war and as such all military leaders/officers are de facto obliged to obey the president. Based on such factors, this paper will explore how the Constitution applies to being a military leader/officer and what are the various contributions the Constitution has had in the creation of the modern day system seen in the U.S. Armed Forces today.
Sworn Oath of Defending the Constitution
First and foremost among the oaths sworn by a military officer/leader is a pledge to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, do note that this isn’t a pledge to obey the President or support Congress in its decisions rather it is an obligation to defend the tenets of the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats.
What you have to understand is that while the Constitution itself is responsible for the creation of the U.S. armed forces (seen in Section 8 Article 1) the fact is that it also entails a distinct separation of powers in order to create a checks and balances system of which each and every U.S. military leader/officer is a part of.
The pledge to defend the Constitution is in part an aspect of this check and balances system wherein despite the fact that the military is under the control of a civilian government, military officers/ leaders also acts as a means of ensuring that such a system isn’t abused (Kuehn, 2010).
For example, in cases where an obviously corrupt elected government is in control, military officers/leaders have the solemn duty to ensure the continued protection of the tenets of the Constitution by intervening in civilian affairs whether through arms or through protest in order to ensure that the Constitution is protected at all costs. This is one of the main reasons why the oath every single military officer takes is not to the President, to Congress, the Judiciary, or the Senate but rather to the Constitution itself.
This is to ensure that should all else fail and the government of the country is corrupt beyond measure and is pursuing a path that is in direct conflict with the ideals put into practice by the founding fathers, there would still be some form of resistance in the form of the Armed Forces of the country in order to ensure that such actions can be prevented and to ensure the reassertion of the proper form of government that is necessary to put the country back on track.
Military Justice and the Constitution
Under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution the creation of a separate justice system for the U.S. military was enacted in order to create a system that specifically deals with cases involving military personnel. What you have to understand is that the creation of such a unique justice system was due to the fact that civilian law lacked the necessary “severity” and “strictness” needed for the Armed Forces (Underhill, 1924).
For example, neglecting ones duty, gross disrespect for a superior, abuse of power in the work place or arriving late for an assignment is normally seen as adverse actions however perfectly allowable under civilian law. Under the military justice system, though such actions have a corresponding criminal punishment due to their violation of military codes of conduct and ethics.
The reason behind this is quite simple, all militaries whether they are based in the U.S., the Philippines, the U.K. or other such countries all function through a process of strict discipline, unquestioning observance of orders and the rules of military codes of conduct, as well as loyalty to ones country.
Without such systems in place the end result would be an undisciplined organization that would be unable to work as a cohesive whole should a period of war occur this resulting in the potential deaths of thousands of soldiers as a direct result.
It is based on this that once a civilian has entered into military service he/she understands that under the 5th amendment to the Constitution they will henceforth be subject to the military justice system until such a time that they released from active duty within the military.
Limitation of Powers
As mentioned earlier, there is an inherent separation of powers within the U.S. Constitution which ensures that no single branch of government has too much power in order to ensure that the there is a certain degree of “control” in order to limit potentially unconstitutional policies from being implemented. The same though can be said in the case of the military wherein based on the constitution the power of the military is limited and controlled by the civilian government of the U.S (Agency group, N.D.).
This is in line with the aforementioned checks and balances system mentioned earlier which all military officers need to take into consideration since despite the potential power at their hands they need to realize that such powers are there only to defend the constitution, protect the people of this nation and ensure its continued existence and as such should not be utilized for personal gain.
Reference List
Agency group. (n.d). Civilian control of military based on constitution. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database,
Kuehn, J. T. (2010). Talking Grand Strategy. Military Review, 90(5), 74.
McCarthy, A. C. (2011). The law: servant or master?. New Criterion, 29(6), 26.
Underhill, L. K. (1924). Jurisdiction of Military Tribunals in the United States Over Civilians. California Law Review, 12(2), 75.
When the time came to organize the first judicial branch, much of the argument in Congress revolved around the establishment of subordinate federal courts and faith in the present municipal courts to practice state jurisdiction. The supporters of a centralized government believed that incorporating a countrywide structure consisting of federal courts was a crucial necessity for an effective administration (Owens & Wedeking, 2011). The remaining Congress affiliates assumed that justice could mostly be found in the courts that were inherent in local communities because the affiliates remembered the unpleasant experience under British governance. There were also groups of individuals who did not trust centralized governments. These people sought to allow state courts the right to review all the cases, including federal law.
The Controversy
Major Elements
The first major element of the controversy is the fact that Congress aimed to protect idiosyncratic legal peculiarities of the state. This meant that the judicial districts were matched to the state borders and supported the exploitation of the particular state’s legislation for the majority of court proceedings in the area. The same approach was used for the selection of federal juries. Another major element was the assignment of circuit-riding duties. For Supreme Court judges, this was probably the most significant means of defense of the local legal values. These duties guaranteed that the judiciaries on the nation’s main court would interact with the residents of the respective area. The judiciaries were required to study the cases more thoroughly at the point where cases fell under the jurisdiction of the federal court (Bentley, 2007). The Judiciary Act also did not mind the local positioning of the subordinate courts and made the judges live in the region where they served.
Varying Viewpoints
The scope of federal jurisdiction grew together with the expansion of the court system and the growing nation of the US. Due to this, a new jurisdiction came in. It addressed the issues of exclusive rights, land rights, slave trade, and impoverishment. The view at the jurisdiction changed over time because existing statutes were constantly updated in order to cover the majority of the federal crimes. In 1842, Congress was able to cover all the federal crimes except those where the individuals were bound by the death penalty (Baker, 2003). It is worth noting that the authority of the federal courts was also one of the key issues of political debates.
Ultimate Outcome
The Reconstruction era and post-Civil War period directed the extensive transformations of federal jurisdiction. In 1875, Congress allowed the district courts of the United States to review all the cases that were connected to the Constitution and federal regulations (Smith, 2008). This resulted in a number of measures intended to extend the limits of the federal courts and restrain the influence of state courts. This act also allowed the parties to take the case to a federal court instead of a state court. The parties could also address a federal court if they were from two different states.
Conclusion
The judiciary act of 1789 founded a federal court structure with extensive control. If the current system were not established by the Founding Fathers, the act would not play a noteworthy part in the development of state courts. Moreover, the multiplicity of legal institutions throughout the United States would not be either failsafe or documented in the resident federal courts.
Bentley, C. (2007). Constrained by the liberal tradition: Why the Supreme Court has not found positive rights in the American Constitution. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007 (6), 1721-1765. Web.
Owens, R. J., & Wedeking, J. P. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Law & Society Review, 45(4), 1027-1061. Web.
Smith, C. A. (2008). Credible commitments and the early American Supreme Court. Law & Society Review, 42(1), 75-110. Web.
The Sixth Amendment is a section of the U.S. Constitution that protects the rights of defendants to ensure that they receive fair and speedy trials. It guarantees them several rights that include knowing the accuser, enjoying the services of a lawyer, and receiving a speedy trial (Acker 24). In addition, it gives them the right to an impartial jury and the right to be informed about the nature of accusations brought against them. This piece of legislation has been used extensively in the United States, especially in cases involving terrorism and witness protection. It is also commonly used in sex crimes. The Sixth Amendment ensures that all criminal defendants get a fair hearing and eradicates the possibility of false imprisonment as well as unfair treatment that criminals face in the hands of law enforcement officers.
History of the Sixth Amendment
The enactment of the Sixth Amendment dates back to the year 1776 when it was first drafted by George Mason as a proposal (Acker 27). It was initially a section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The original document contained all the provisions of the current legislation except the right of a defendant to get the services of a lawyer. It was enacted into law in 1791 after being ratified by the state. Several historical cases led to its adoption.
For instance, an incident involving the Scottsboro boys led to the Powell v. Alabama case that was lodged after the imprisonment of the boys (Acker 32). The legal community argued that the boys had been denied justice because their attorneys had not been given sufficient time to gather facts and prepare for the case. Other court cases that were important in the adoption of the Sixth Amendment included the Betts V. Brady case of 1942 and the Gideon v. Wainright case of 1963.
Interpretation of the Sixth Amendment by the Supreme Court since its adoption
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment in different ways since its adoption. In the Barker v. Wingo case of 1972, the Court drafted guidelines to have been since been used to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated (Shea 31). In the Strunk v. United States case of 1973, the Court ruled that any violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial would result in the nullification of the ruling (Vile 410).
The right to a public trial was revised by the Court to include certain restrictions in cases where publicity had the potential to alter the outcomes of a trial and thus deny the defendant justice. This ruling was made during the Sheppard v. Maxwell case in 1966. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to a speedy trial (Shea 36). However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to make it relative, depending on the prevailing circumstances associated with a certain case.
The speed of a trial encompasses the right of the defendant and the need to uphold public justice. Therefore, there is a need to balance the requirements of the constitution to maintain the right of defendants and defend public justice. The Court has been very strict in its interpretation of the defendant’s right to counsel. In Powell v. Alabama, Johnson v. Zerbst, Betts v. Brady and Progeny, and Gideon v. Wainright cases, the Supreme Court maintained that the right of a defendant to have an attorney was incontrovertible (Shea 48). The right was also interpreted to include effective assistance by counsel and the right to retain an attorney during the entire period of trial.
Court cases that are relevant to the Sixth Amendment
The precepts of the Sixth Amendment have been used in various instances to resolve court cases. An example of its application is during the Gideon v. Wainright case in 1963. Gideon had been accused of breaking into a house with the intent to commit a crime. Gideon represented himself because he did not have an attorney. He requested the judge to appoint an attorney for him because he could not afford one (Shea 63).
However, the judge denied him the request because, at the time, Florida’s law contained provisions that provided state attorneys to defendants who were in court for capital offense charges only (Shea 63). Gideon filed a petition to the Supreme Court that challenged his conviction, which he described as a violation of his rights as stipulated in the Sixth Amendment. The Court reversed the ruling and remanded Gideon because of his right to get an attorney had been violated (Vile 410).
In the Sheppard v. Maxwell case that was ruled in 1966, the Court maintained that the defendant had not received a fair trial. Sheppard had been convicted of second-degree murder after the death of his wife. Citing an unfair trial, Sheppard challenged the ruling (Shea 73).
He presented evidence before the Supreme Court that the lower court’s judge had failed to protect him from the massive glare of the media that contributed to the outcome of the case in which he was denied a fair trial. The Court evaluated the case and concluded that Sheppard had not received a fair trial and maintained that the trial judge had allowed massive media publicity to alter the outcome of the hearing (Shea 73). The media had ganged against Sheppard with the intent to portray him in negative light both to the public and to the jury. The ruling was overturned.
Works Cited
Acker, James, and Brody David. Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2004. Print.
Shea, Therese. The Sixth Amendment: The Rights of the Accused in Criminal Cases. New York: the Rosen Publishing Group, 2011. Print.
Vile, John. Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1798-2002. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Print.
The increasing rate of drug use and drug abuse has been a matter of growing concern in the United States. The U.S government has undertaken a large number of preventive measures, altered legislations and even made constitutional amendments to tackle the ill effects of drug use among its citizens. However, how far these drug enforcement and control strategies and tactics, and preventive measures have been successful is debatable as one does not find any positive changes in the nation. This situation has forced many to advocate legalization of drug use rather than its deterrence in the nation. The paper tries to analyze the effects of the fourth amendment of U.S Constitution on the drug prevention in the nation and it tries to judge whether legalization, decriminalizing drug use and drug treatment could offer a better solution to the issue of drug use and drug abuse in the nation. The question should be raised as to whether drug treatment programs work and whether legalization is really the answer in terms of individual harm, societal harm, and economic harm. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, federal and state laws all play a vital role in maintaining the balance between individual freedoms, government interference and the protecting the rest of the community/society.
The fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution paid special attention to drug testing as a means of identifying drug users among government officials, fire arm people, and railroad employees; it also aimed at deriving “some useful information for an accident investigation” and promoting “deterrence as well as detection of drug use.” ((n.d.), Drug Testing).
Main Text
The Drug detection policy also aimed at deterring drug use by the school children of the nation and made it mandatory that all the student athletes undergo the test. It considered the drug usage by children as important as that of the engineer or firearm men. There have been many tactics and strategies formulated by the government for the prevention of drug abuse and the Effective National Drug Control Strategy of 1999 assumes primary significance in this regard. It proposes the need for a new model of drug control in the nation that emphasizes on the need to preserve the public health of the nation and it draws the conclusions that “the current model of drug control: 1) does not reduce adolescent drug use; 2) does not reduce the supply of drugs; 3) does not reduce the harm caused by drugs.” (The Effective National drug Control Strategy 1999: The Need for a New Model of Drug Control). The vastness and the complexity of drug abuse in the United States is so high that it necessitates multifaceted tactics to prevent it: for this, traditional enforcement practices such as “street-level enforcement, mid-level investigation, major investigation, crop eradication and smuggling interdiction” need to be carefully implemented. (H. Williams, 2008).
However studies have proved that these traditional approaches and strategies were not competent enough in tackling the issue and this has given way to strategies like “problem-oriented policing strategies, community-oriented policing strategies, more financially oriented drug investigations, more extensive international co-operation and a renewed emphasis on drug demand reduction.” (H. Williams, 2008, Drug control strategies of United States law enforcement). All these strategies have resulted in more arrest and penalties; however the increasing rate of the crime remains the same.
Conclusion
The failure of the criminal laws, deterrence policies and the drug prohibition steps have forced many to think of alternative ways to bring down the number of people affected by various drugs. According to Goode it is essential that “the current system of prohibition be replaced with a system of drug legalization in one form or other”; this presupposes three major changes-legalization, decriminalization and a policy of harm reduction. (Goode, 2008, p.445). Once drug use is made legalized the government should see that it is based on a policy of harm reduction and no full decriminalization is made possible. Thus, it can be concluded that drug use and drug abuse in the United States can only be brought under control through legalization which is supported by the provision for needy drug addicts to have aces to the drugs, but through proper prescription from the part of the Governmental agencies.
References
Drug Testing. (n.d.). Amendment 4: Searches and seizure. 1335. 2008. Web.
Goode, Erich. (2008). Drugs in American society. 7th Ed. 445. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
H. Williams. (2008). Drug control strategies of United States law enforcement: Traditional enforcement practices. United Nations: Office on Drugs and Crimes. Web.