Lost in Translation Posted October 20, 2018 Second Amendment Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment The Second amendment is the freedom to bear arms. I think the commas in this sentence are a source of confusion, since commas can be translated as a parenthetical aside, as a an "or", and as as "and." The above essentially says the following: (I'll reword the original text for clarity) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Commentary on the Second Amendment Quote For over 200 years, despite extensive debate and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there was no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) and its operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”). To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the “states’ rights” thesis emphasized the importance of the prefatory clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The “individual rights” thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms. Whatever the Amendment meant, it was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state or private restraints. Quote It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 21, 2018 Third Amendment Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/third_amendment What more is there to say here? The Third Amendment is straightforward and has never been litigated before the Supreme Court. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 21, 2018 That sure was violated a lot during the US Civil War. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 21, 2018 Fourth Amendment Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment As they say, "a man's home is his castle." The people have a right to be secure in their home and property. There shall be no "unreasonable" searches nor seizures, "reasonable" being defined as upon probable cause and with warrant specifying the exact place to be searched and items sought. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 21, 2018 And this one has been violated quit often lately. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 22, 2018 Fifth Amendment Quote No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment How many times have you heard a suspect say "I plead the fifth" on a television procedural crime show? Well, this is it. The Fifth Amendment grants the right to trial, forbids being tried for the same offense twice ("double jeopardy"), protects against self incrimination for criminal offense, and protects against uncompensated seizure of private land for government use. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted October 22, 2018 On 10/20/2018 at 11:41 AM, Lost in Translation said: well regulated Militia Not historical development, but modern US law...I tend to refer people to this when they don't know what the militia is, or are making things up about it (saying it's the military, etc). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, Aetherous said: Not historical development, but modern US law...I tend to refer people to this when they don't know what the militia is, or are making things up about it (saying it's the military, etc). For those who don't want to click, the link above points here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Quote (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Thanks for the information. This is very helpful. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 22, 2018 Sixth Amendment Quote 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 defense. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment The Sixth Amendment continues to enumerate the rights of the people when accused of a crime. Here we see that the people have a right to a prompt and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to be informed of the accusations against them and the right to have their accusers brought before them. Secret courts, secret witnesses, secret accusations - these are not allowed, and are not a part of the American society. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 22, 2018 Seventh Amendment Quote In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment Fun fact: $20 in 1791 is equivalent of $537 today. https://www.officialdata.org/1791-dollars-in-2018?amount=20 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 22, 2018 Another fun fact: $20 is 1791 was equal to $20 in 1910. https://www.officialdata.org/1791-dollars-in-1910?amount=20 Here is a table showing the relative value of a 1900 $20 for each decade since 1900. 1900: $20.00 1910: $22.62 1920: $47.62 1930: $39.76 1940: $33.33 1950: $57.38 1960: $70.48 1970: $92.38 1980: $196.19 1990: $311.19 2000: $410.00 2010: $519.18 Anyone still want to trust their future to the government? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 23, 2018 Eighth Amendment Quote Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 23, 2018 Notice the trend in the last few amendments: 4 - Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure 5 - Right of trial, protection against self-incrimination, no double-jeopardy 6 - Right to counsel, to face one's accusers 7 - Right of trial by jury 8 - Protection against excessive bail, cruel punishments Why do you think framers, and the original legislators in the first Congress felt the need to enumerate these rights? What was the world like, specifically what was a typical European government like, in 1791? This is an important question, since in many ways it feels like we are regressing as a people. We may still have the legal protections of the Bill of Rights, but socially we are losing them. 4 - Socially, are we free from unreasonable search and seizure? Does the media respect privacy? Does social media leave any stone unturned? 5 - Socially, are we free from self-incrimination? Does the media distinguish between private conversation among friends and public speech? 6 - Socially, do we have the right to face our accusers or do we let anonymous accusations destroy careers? 7 - Socially, do we wait for the facts before passing judgement or do we judge first when it is politically expedient? 8 - Socially, do we match the punishment to the crime, or do we allow one teenage indiscretion to destroy a man? Have we lost our way? Are we in decline? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 23, 2018 Ninth Amendment Quote The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment In other words, the list of rights here are not the only rights of the people. That is to say that the people have additional rights beyond the finite list presented so far. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 23, 2018 Tenth Amendment Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment The tenth amendment is deceptively simple. Let's break it down. The above is saying that the US Federal Government has only the powers that are expressly given it by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the individual states or to the people themselves. This is an upside-down view of government, one where the government is below the people and not vice-versa. The US was always intended to favor individuals first, then states, and lastly the central government. It is good to remember this, since it is the foundation of the liberties and freedoms that Americans enjoy. And that, my friends, is the end of the Bill of Rights. I'll take a bit of a break then return in a day or two with the remainder of the amendments. Feel free to comment on anything written to date. I always appreciate your feedback. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 24, 2018 14 hours ago, Lost in Translation said: Ninth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment In other words, the list of rights here are not the only rights of the people. That is to say that the people have additional rights beyond the finite list presented so far. For sure. I have the right to be wrong and also the right to change my mind. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 25, 2018 Eleventh Amendment Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi It does not "altogether bar suits against states in the federal courts", rather "it barred suits against states based on the status of the party plaintiff". In other words, the eleventh amendment prevents a person from bringing suit against a state to which they are not a citizen. For example, it prevents a citizen of Georgia from bringing suit against any state except Georgia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-11/state-sovereign-immunity This amendment came about of Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793, wherein Alexander Chisholm of North Carolina successfully sued the state of Georgia over debts owed from the American Revolutionary War. The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of this suit and reflects the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Iredell, that states, being sovereign, cannot be sued in civil court without their consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) Twelfth Amendment Quote 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 the 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, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii If this section sounds familiar then that is not an accident. The Twelfth Amendment is a change to Article 2, section 1 of the constitution and describes the process by which states choose the President and Vice President. Quote The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President ... they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President ... [T]he 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, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice ... 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. So we see here that the electors cast two ballots, one for President and one for Vice President. These votes are counted in the Senate. The majority winner shall be President or Vice President. If there is no majority the the House of Representatives shall chose the President from among the top three winners and the Senate shall choose the Vice President from among the top two winners. The main change here is the addition of separate votes for President and Vice President to eliminate ambiguity in the event of a tie, which is exactly what happened in 1800. Quote [The Twelfth Amendment] was adopted so as to make impossible the situation that occurred after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice President https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12 Edited October 26, 2018 by Lost in Translation 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 27, 2018 (edited) Quote Twelfth Amendment Care to comment on the movement to do away with this process and what would happen if done. Edited October 27, 2018 by windwalker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 27, 2018 6 hours ago, windwalker said: Care to comment on the movement to do away with this process and what would happen if done. I'm not aware of a desire to change the twelfth amendment. Are you referring to the push to remove the electoral college? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 27, 2018 Thirteenth Amendment Quote Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865, the year that the American Civil War ended. This amendment forever abolished slavery and other forms of involuntary servitude (except as lawful punishment for crime) within the US and her territories. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 27, 2018 (edited) Fourteenth Amendment Quote Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv The Fourteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to the freed slaves and clarified how to count the population for the purpose of calculating representation in Congress. Let's go through this by section. Quote Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This just states that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US. In other words, it's not possible to be born here yet not be a citizen here. This eliminates the argument that freed slaves are not citizens. Quote Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. This says that representation shall be based upon the total population of persons in each state, minus the Indians not taxed and any male inhabitants 21 years of age or more who are denied the right to vote for any reason except for crime or rebellion. In other words, if a state denies its male citizens 21 years of age the right to vote for any reason except participation in criminal or rebellious behavior then that state will lose representation in proportion to the number of people it denies the right to vote. Quote Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall hav[ing] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, [to] remove such disability. This basically states that anyone who (prior to the Civil War) had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then subsequently fought on behalf of the South against the United States is ineligible to hold office (civilian or military) within the United States without a 2/3rd overriding vote of both houses of Congress. Quote Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. In other words, the US will honor its debts but will NOT honor the debts of the Confederacy of Southern States. Quote Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Congress can do what it needs to do to enforce this $%*#. I'll let this sink in for a bit. Feel free to comment or ask questions. Edited October 27, 2018 by Lost in Translation 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 27, 2018 That one has been screwed all over recently, hasn't it? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Marblehead said: That one has been screwed all over recently, hasn't it? Which one, the 13th or 14th? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 27, 2018 Just now, Lost in Translation said: Which one, the 13th or 14th? The 14th. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
