Fifth Amendment

[Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings]

"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 in public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think that this is one of the best known amendments, because of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which allows for people to "plead the fifth." But it seems that the other five clauses are not as well known. For instance the Grand Jury Clause, which guarantees Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes unless with an indictment by a grand jury, or the Double Jeopardy Clause which guarantees that Americans cannot be tried twice or punished twice for the same crime are just as important for criminal proceedings as being able to "plead the fifth." Furthermore this amendment's Due Process and Eminent Domain Clauses are not even associated with criminal proceedings, and secure an American's right to "life, liberty, or property" (Due Process) and that they must be compensated if their land is to be taken by the government (Eminent Domain). 

The fifth amendment requires anyone being taken into police custody to be read their Miranda Rights--which is basically their right to not make any self-incriminating statements. There are four basic parts to this: 

1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to an attorney
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you 

Although, I think it is important for people to know their rights, I think that there are some flaws with this clause. The biggest issue that I have with this is that if a suspect is taken into custody without having been given the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary and as a result, any evidence discovered because of that statement or confession will likely be thrown out of the case.

 

Although I understand the reasons for the Double Jeopardy Clause, it still seems so wrong that something like this can happen. How is it possible that our legal system is set up so that if someone is not charged with a crime, they can admit to it and still not be punished? Or what if new evidence were to come up that would convict the person after charges were dropped? 

I think one of the best known instances where this clause has faced some controversy is with the OJ Simpson case, where even after he was let go, he wrote a book, where he basically admitted to his crime. Yet because of double jeopardy, dangerous criminals do have the chance to walk away without any punishment. 

Fourth Amendment

[Security From Unwarrantable Search & Seizure]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This amendment is definitely a big part of our freedom here in the United States, but I do wonder how many people have gotten away with a crime they have committed because the police were unable to obtain a warrant in time, or did not have the right kind of evidence in order to obtain that warrant. So although I know I would not want a police officer coming to search my home or go through my property anytime they felt like it, I do have some issues with this amendment. 

   

 

This is an example of what really annoys me about this amendment. Joseph Martinez was clearly guilty--the evidence the police found in his home proved this. But because they did not have a warrant he was able to get away with his crime. How many more children will he be able to harm now? This goes with many other criminals, not just child pornographers, murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. can all walk away with their crimes, if they are smart enough to cover their tracks so that the police will not have probable cause for a warrant, even if the proof they need for conviction is right there--and only the warrant stands in the way.  

The issue that I have with this video, is that if the police are able to take guns away from children, why can they not use that same policy to search homes of adults? Granted, the parents reserve the right to turn the cops away, but I feel that if the Boston Police were able to find a way around the fourth amendment, then other law enforcement organizations should be able to as well.

Third Amendment

[Quartering of Soldiers]

"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."

Due to the fact that the American military personnel are housed by the government, the American people do not need to worry about having to house them in times of trouble, as was the case in England. That being said, if our country were to be in such a situation where that military housing were to become unavailable, I would not be opposed to opening my home to help serve the country in its time of need. If our troops are so willing to put their lives on the line to defend us and our freedom, then why should we not be willing to do something as simple as opening our doors for them? 

This is a picture from a military base in Presidio, California. I really liked this picture because it shows that the government really does provide for our troops and their families, and that military housing is usually not substandard in any way. Because the government does provide housing for our military, they would never have to be housed with any civilians. This housing makes it so that we do not have to even really think much about this amendment.

This video was a good example of military housing. Once again, like the first picture showed/explained, our military is taken very good care of. I think that without this housing provided to them, the possibility of troops having to "be quartered" with civilians would be much more likely.

Second Amendment

[Right to Keep & Bear Arms]

"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 right to keep and bear arms is important to Americans for many reasons, and if that right were taken away there would be a huge outcry from the public. Although I personally do not have a gun, my father has always kept one in the house for protection and I have many friends who enjoy hunting and going to shooting ranges; which are just two example of why typical Americans feel the need to own guns. Furthermore, I feel that if this right were to be taken away, violent crimes and tragic outcomes of guns would just get worse. For instance, the people who use guns inappropriately would not be stopped from committing a crime because the gun is illegal for them to own. And if they are already willing to break the law, why would they be stopped from illegally owning a gun so that they can commit their crime? All that taking away this amendment would do is leave the law-abiding citizens as the only ones without a way to protect themselves. Lastly, I feel that having a government which allows its citizens to own something so powerful just goes to show how much freedom we do have here in the United States. It seems to me that its a way of the government respecting us as its people. Although there are way too many instances where this privilege has been abused, the government is still allowing us an immense amount of freedom where it is probably undeserved. Therefore this is in my opinion, probably one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights.

I liked this video because it explains the amendment in a really simple, straightforward way, as well as giving background to why it was added to the Constitution. Further, I liked how he brought up the opinions of those in favor of gun control, and why they are, in essence, wrong. 

To me, the most shocking part of this video was that the police had to get permission from their police chief before they could get guns so that they could stop the man who was shooting so many innocent people. How many of those innocent lives could have been saved if guns were legal? For one thing, the police could have gotten to the scene faster without having to wait for the necessary permission. And for another, what if one of those civilians were to have a gun for self-defense? Lastly, what criminal who has a gun, is going to fear a police force who do not have guns? The criminal is obviously going to have the upper hand, no matter if he is outnumbered, surrounded...or whatever the situation may be. To me, this is just further proof that if the United States' government were ever to establish such a policy as gun control, disastrous results would occur.

First Amendment

[Freedom of Religion, of Speech, & of the Press]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

In my opinion, this is one of the most important amendments. These five freedoms - religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government - is the basic premise of our country. We're the "Land of the Free" because of these basic rights granted to us in this amendment. Additionally, I strongly believe that this is one of the most taken-for-granted rights, which us Americans are so lucky to have. There are so many people around the world who's countries do not allow them any of these basic rights. Take this blog assignment, for example. Many people might not be very keen on the idea; but what if they were a student in, say, Saudi Arabia? They would not have the opportunity to publicly express their opinion about the government. Especially as an assignment from an instructor, such as this blog. The cartoon to the left seems to be a perfect example of this. As generations come and go, they see these rights in different ways. And as the 3rd picture shows, the majority of this generation could care less.

These people are using their First Amendment right to protest. They do not agree with the way our country is spending money. The man's sign clearly shows that he believes in order to get out of debt, our government needs to cut spending. Once again, many countries would punish their citizens for a public protest such as this. Yet nothing will happen to this man for his protest because he is protected by the First Amendment. 

Although burning the American flag, the Bible, and the Koran is quite extreme, it is an excellent example of the rights granted to us in this amendment. In many countries this man would be seriously persecuted for doing something as disrespectful as burning his country's flag. Yet here, in the USA, he will suffer no repercussions whatsoever.