Twelfth Amendment

[Election of President & Vice President]

-Proposed by Congress on December 9, 1803; Declared ratified on September 25, 1804

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; --the President of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; --The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I do not agree with the electoral college system of voting. Even though I understand the reasons for it, I do not think that it always the most fair system because it is not guaranteed to bring the popular candidate into office. Although there have only been three instances where the popular vote and electoral vote were not the same, I still think that that is too many times for the popular vote of a democracy to not be represented. 

 

 Electoral college process explained 

In 2000, Al Gore received 540,000 more popular votes nationwide than George W. Bush. But because he was short four votes from the electoral college, he was not able to become the next president. 

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was the winner in the electoral college although he received fewer votes than his opponent Samuel Tilden. 

And in 1888, Grover Cleveland received more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison, but was again short of electoral votes. 

In the 2008 election, between President Barrack Obama and Senator John McCain, Obama received 365 electoral votes, and McCain 173. The popular vote was 69,456,897 to 59,934,814, respectively.

Eleventh Amendment

[Restriction of Judicial Power]

-Proposed by Congress on March 4, 1794; Declared ratified on January 8, 1798

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

The Eleventh Amendment limits the power of the federal courts to hear cases against state governments by the citizens of another state or country. This has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court to bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits by citizens of the sate who are being sued and lawsuits initiated by the governments of different countries. An example of this could be a state using this amendment to protect itself from being sued in a federal court by it's residents or residents of different states or countries. Furthermore, by limiting the power of national courts to hear lawsuits against state governments, this amendment ensures that there is a balance between the sovereignty shared by both state and national governments.

In this video, Alex Jones examines the factors leading towards the Obama Administration's intention to sue Arizona over its controversial immigration laws. This is an unconstitutional act according to the 11th Amendment--which bars the suing of states under certain circumstances. (Links to the articles shown in this video are listed below):

1. Obama Administration to sue Arizona over migrant laws
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/07/obama-administration-to-sue-arizona-migrant-laws
   
2. Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal
   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
   
3.  Kyl: Obama Won't Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/kyl-obama-wont-secure-border-lawmakers-immigration-package/
   
4.  11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Feds, Citizens cannot sue state on behalf of other powers
   http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/11th-t.htm
   
5.  Mexican Drug Cartel Sends Death Threats to Arizona County Sheriff
   http://www.infowars.com/mexican-drug-cartel-sends-death-threats-to-arizona-county-sheriff/
   
6.  New York National Guard Units Scan Vehicles for Gun Confiscations
   http://www.infowars.com/new-york-national-guard-units-scan-vehicles-for-gun-confiscations/
   

An example of a 21st Century court case in violation of the Eleventh Amendment is Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), where state employees sued the state of Alabama for failing to comply with Title I of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Alabama asserted immunity under this amendment--arguing that the Eleventh Amendment protects non-consenting states from being sued by private individuals in federal court.

In this case, the Supreme Court determined that Congress had not acted within its constitutional authority in applying Title I to the states, the Supreme Court held that an individual could not sue a state for money damages under Title I.

Tenth Amendment

[Powers Reserved to States or People]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of the states, can have. States determine the rules for marriages, divorces, driving licenses, education requirements, and the like. Because these areas are not listed in the Constitution, they are therefore under the control of the states. 

I have mixed feelings for this amendment. On one hand, I think it is a good idea for different states to have different laws regarding these issues, because if one state doesn't allow, say gay marriage, than another state will, thereby giving that couple the opportunity to marry. On the other hand, it seems wrong that if a couple had to move because of work, or some other issue, or maybe would just rather live in a certain state, than their marriage would run the risk of not being recognized by that state.

As Mike Huckabee said, states' rights are not an outdated concept, they are incredibly important to our Constitution. I think that that is especially important with issues such as medical marijuana, as is presented in this video. Coming from California, I am used to seeing these medical marijuana places on what seems like almost every corner. I feel that this is a much better issue to be decided at the state level rather than federal, because it almost seems as though the majority of people's opinions depend on where they are from. The typical stereotype of the laid-back, liberal Californian, is fitting for promoting the legality of marijuana. But if someone were to take the issue of legalizing the drug into say, a more Southern and conservative state, the people would be much more opposed to it.

Ninth Amendment

[Reservation of Rights of People]

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

The Bill of Rights mentions certain rights that are to be protected from the government's interference, such as:

• freedom of speech
• freedom of religion
• freedom of the press
• freedom of the press
• freedom of assembly 
• right to keep and bear arms 
• etc.

However, just because a right is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean that the government automatically has the right to interfere with it. That is where the 9th Amendment comes in. It says that any right not enumerated, or listed, in the Constitution is still retained by the people. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't put every natural right that human beings need for protection in the Constitution. So they delegated certain powers the government that were specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and said that everything else is left up to individuals and to their state governments.

There are two clauses to this amendment:

1. The Enumeration of Rights Clause states that there are certain rights of the people, which are specifically listed, in the Constitution
2. The Rights Retained by the People Clause states that any rights that naturally belong to human beings, that are not specifically listed in the Constitution, are still protected rights. In other words, the government still cannot infringe on these rights, even though the Constitution doesn't say it can't Those rights are still "retained" by the people

Although it all sounds relatively clear...I do wonder who should determine what are those rights that are not listed in the Constitution but deserve the government's protection?

People claim that they have rights to something and the government has no authority to tell them whether they can or not:

• right to abortion
• right to die 
• right to same sex marriage 

All of these examples have had laws passed banning them. Does the government have the right to do that? Or is that an example of the government violating the natural rights of human beings? In many cases, courts have rules in cases involving these issues and have thrown out the laws made by the people in their legislatures, forbidding these behaviors. The Courts' rationale has been that the legislatures have no authority granted in the Constitution make laws regarding these rights and were therefore unconstitutional--but doesn't this amendment make that action constitutional?

Eighth Amendment

[Bails, Fines, Punishments]

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

Since this amendment was put into the Constitution, there has not been a single person who has not been treated according to their eighth amendment rights. Although there are those who argue that the treatment which suspected terrorists receive at Guantanamo Bay, violates this amendment, I think that that is incorrect, as they are not American citizens, so they therefore are not under the protection of the Constitution. But, more on that later. 

The eighth amendment is pretty straight-forward. It clearly explains that bail must be set in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. So a judge could not make a $100,000 bail amount for someone who committed a "petty crime." However, something that may not be so clear, is that bail is not a right. There are some instances where a judge is allowed to withhold bail. 

So one of the arguments against the 8th amendment is whether or not it applies to those suspected terrorist held in Guantanamo Bay. Many believe that they are protected from "cruel and unusual punishment," and that they therefore are being treated unconstitutionally. In my opinion, however, I believe that they are not American citizens, so they are therefore not entitled to the Constitution's protection. Furthermore, they are being detained in the first place for suspected terrorist activity, so why should anyone care if they are being treated unconstitutionally if they are trying to harm America? I know that that probably sounds horrible, but it just seems like cold, hard fact to me. At least by them being locked up, even if they are being treated rather "cruelly," but not, I don't think, in any wrong, inhumane way, they are not able to cause any American any harm. 

Another controversial issue dealing with the eighth amendment is whether or not the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Although innocent people have been put to death, I think that it if for the most part, a just punishment. It is not as if they are being tortured or anything else. It is supposed to be quick and painless--nothing that would fall under the category of "cruel" or "unusual." It is tragic that people have been innocently put to death, but nothing is ever perfect, and I think that this form of punishment is in fact constitutional.

Seventh Amendment

[Trial by Jury in Civil Cases]

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

This is basically just reiterating an accused's right to have a trial by jury in most civil cases and also guarantees that facts decided by those juries cannot be reexamined at a later date. The right to trial by jury is one of the most frequently mentioned rights in the Bill of Rights. It was clearly very important to America's Founding Fathers. Additionally, during the 1700s, twenty dollars was a lot more money than it is today. Now, for any dispute involving less than $1,500.00 small claims court will handle the case without a jury. Personally, I feel that this amendment doesn't even need to be a part of the Constitution. It seems that it is just repeating what has already been said.

Court room based, reality TV shows, such as Judge Judy, are set in small claims court. Basically, small claims courts limit claims for damages to a certain amount of money, ranging from $2,500-$5,000. Small claims cases typically involve fender benders, property damage, disputes over security deposits, personal debt, and unsatisfactory consumer goods. Judge Judy can actually be a good example of showing exactly what small claims court is like--minus the drama. For example, by watching, the viewer can clearly see that there are not any lawyers in the court room, because it is typical for many small courts to not allow lawyers in the courtroom.

Again, this is just repeating the right to a jury. The only difference between this amendment and the others is that this one  is referring to civil cases. It seems that in the fifth and sixth amendments, where rights of the accused are mentioned, this amendment could be squeezed in. Because it is basically just repeating the same rights but adding civil instead of implying a federal case.

Sixth Amendment

[Right to Speedy Trial, Witnesses, Etc.]

"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."

I believe that the two most important parts of this amendment are 1) the right to a speedy and public trial, and 2) the right to an impartial jury. First, the right to a quick trial is important so that no one is sitting in jail for six years while having to wait for a trial. Furthermore, if someone were guilty, it would be unfair to them to have to wait for however long, and then have their sentence added on top of that time already served waiting for the trial, just as if they were innocent, it would be unfair to make them wait in jail for a crime they did not committ. Another part that I find to be a very important part of this amendment is the trial by an impartial jury. If a black man was on trial and his jurors were all members of the KKK, that man would not stand a very good chance of winning his case, despite what the evidence proved. Therefore, the right to an impartial jury ensure that everyone is granted a better opportunity for a fair trial.

Even though this amendment sounds fair and definitely has good intentions, I don't think that it is always that way. I feel that there have been many cases since this amendment was passed where people have not had as fair of a trial as this amendment seems to promise. Furthermore, I feel that this amendment is rather vague. For instance, what constitutes the "timely manner" that is promised for a trial or being notified of charges?









In the case of Blakely v. Washington, 2004, Howard Blakely felt that he was not granted some of the rights promised in the 6th amendment. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife. The facts admitted to in his plea, supported a maximum sentence of 53 months, but the judge imposed a 90-month sentence after finding that the petitioner had acted with deliberate cruelty. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that were legally essential to his sentence.