Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the 7th amendment
Essays on the 7th amendment
Importance of the seventh amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the 7th amendment
Essays on the 7th amendment
Importance of the seventh amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the 7th amendment
After the Declaration of Independence in 1787, the Federal Government turned to the creation of the Constitution in which delegates from 13 states convened to make compromises on their beliefs for the betterment of a nation. Although the Bill of Rights was initially not a part of the Constitution, the Federalists thought that it was crucial to ensure ratification of the Constitution. This ratification was one of the main reasons why the Bill of Rights needed to be added. Federalists feared a strong, central government, and created a Bill of Rights in order to prevent government abuse. Others believed that a dominating Government could prohibit rights in the future, which would not necessarily be expressed in the Bill of Rights.
The third amendment of The Bill of Rights required the civilians permission to allow a soldier into the person’s home. The fourth amendment gave a citizen the right to privacy from the government in their home, therefore the soldier would not be allowed to enter the home. The sixth amendment required a public trial by a jury of the their peers requiring the royal officer accused a crime to remain. The Bill of Rights also gave the people the right to freedom of expression under the first amendment. Finally amendment nine claimed that the Constitution could not be used to limit the rights of the people.
Two hundred and two years, seven months, and twelve days is what it took our twenty-seventh amendment to be ratified onto our constitution. Was this a very sensitive and complex amendment that needed meticulous studying and logistics planing? No, the twenty-seventh amendment simply states that no Senators or Representatives can alter their pay during their tenure and only can it be changed when their term is up. In the constitution it states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened". While this seems so simple, there seems to be some inherent complexity to it.
When our founding fathers first created the Constitution it was found unworkable and had to have some changes before the ratification. In that process people began to have some differences such as the Federalist saw that the enhanced Constitution alone would protect all basic human rights. While Antifederalist saw that we needed an extra addition to the document that would genuinely give the basic rights, liberties, and limit the government from denouncing these rights and liberties from the people. The Bill of Rights was a necessary addition that has and will continue to protect the people from injustice in the government with the help of the Supreme Court.
Not everyone agrees with the government or if we should even have a government. What's the point of having rules, laws, someone in charge of running who could be unqualified? Each person in the government is protected by having for too much power. Every single person that has something to do with the federal government has some sort of power of someone. John Dickinson wrote The Articles of Confederation which were very weak and a disappointed to our country.
After the Constitution was sent to states for ratification, the people felt the Constitution did not protect the natural rights of the American citizens. The cause or reason for this addition to the Constitution was to ensure that the rights detailed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not thought to be the only possible rights of American citizens. The Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, said that if certain rights weren't specifically granted to the people, the government would easily take over these rights and abuse the people in the country. The Federalists, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, said that the Constitution give the government to do things that were
Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth" seeing that some Federalist was skeptical of the idea of listing rights. James Madison called it "parchment barrier" but regardless of his skepticism the declaration of rights was added to the US Constitution13. Initially, some amendments proposed by Madison were rejected including his "proposal to extend free speech protections to the States. " What followed were debates over spelling out what constituted the Bill of Rights, especially the "due process of law" preserved under the 14th Amendment. However, it was not until in 1925, in Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652, did the US Supreme Court found
The Constitution, which was written in 1787, was not fully supported by the citizens of the United States (Buescher). Citizens of the United States felt that their natural rights regarding life and property were not being upheld or protected by the United States Constitution. From a response to these complaints came the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, written by James Madison in 1789, holds the first 10 amendments, or alterations, to the United States Constitution. Madison, a member of the United States House of Representatives, proposed the Bill of Rights in response to requests from states and citizens who believed that the Constitution did not protect basic human individual liberties (Bobb).
The first amendment establishes the people the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and to petition. The second amendment establishes the peoples’ right to have weapons and the third amendment protects them from being forced to house the military. Due to the Fifth Amendment, Citizens’ protection from unreasonable search and seizure was put in place, as for the sixth amendment Americans has a right to an attorney and a fair trial in the court of law by an impartial jury of his or her peers. The Seventh amendment gives citizens the right to a trial by jury if there are claims exceeding twenty dollars made, and the eighth amendment makes it illegal for bail to exceed an price the contrast to the crime committed, and prevents cruel and unusual punishment by a court of law. The ninth amendment protects what may be later seen as a right, and finally, the tenth amendment gives states the right to establish laws that has yet been established by the federal
The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments in our Constitution which protect our fundamental rights and ensure a limited government. In 1868 the 14th Amendment was added, which guarantees citizens equal protection under the law and due process. For the Bill of Rights to be effective it would have to protect everyone rights equally, but there are too many cases when minorities or anyone else’s rights are infringed. Therefore the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment is ineffective and does not protect the rights of all citizens. Someone’s race, gender, and religion could all affect how they are treated.
I want you to close your eyes for a moment. Imagine Amendment 70 passes, what do you see? Do you see yourself prospering? No longer living check to check? Now open them.
6th Amendment I personally find that out of all the amendments the most important one is the 6th amendment. Reason being that it is crucial in aiding the judicial process from wrongly persecuting innocent people and it allows our democratic process to continue without preventing innocent people for taking the fall while punishing those who harm it. It keeps justice in check, keeping laws in line and rulings to be fair. The 6th amendment helps the defendants have an attorney when they are unable to afford one.
Plea bargaining is a tool often utilized during the adjudication process that serves several different purposes for all parties involved. The definition of a plea bargain, according to Frank Schmalleger, is: “The process of negotiating an agreement among the defendant, the prosecutor, and the court as to an appropriate plea and associated sentence in a given case. Plea bargaining circumvents the trial process and dramatically reduces the time required for the resolution of a criminal case” (Schmalleger, 2016, p.233). With plea bargaining, not only is the defendant offered an alternative to going to trial, but the defense is spared the strenuous process of producing enough substantial evidence to potentially get a conviction. The court is
Proposed by Representative Jim McGovern in 2011, the People’s Rights Amendment would ratify the Constitution’s meaning of the word people. The definition of the word person is a “natural human”, meaning not a group of people. This amendment would overturn the Citizens United decision, which allowed companies to have the same rights of free speech as people. McGovern declared that, “My amendment clarifies that corporations, whether they are for-profit or non-profit entities are not people with constitutional rights.” While many support this amendment, such as the Free Speech for the People group, others say that this amendment will allow the government to take advantage of companies and organizations.
The slogan about, “It’s not about what you know, it’s about who you know” has proven to be relatively true in the criminal courts. Plea bargains are made in between counsel; thus it is really beneficial to a defense attorney’s client if that attorney has a positive relationship with the prosecutor in the case. Relationship is also important in the Judge and attorney interactions. If an attorney has a bad reputation amongst Judges, it is more than likely that the attorney will have a hard time putting on a case in front of certain Judges. This political atmosphere of the courts is not always a good thing because it seems to mix relationship with justice and justice should be unbiased and impartial with respect to the defendant as well as legal