Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is the ability of an individual to keep their personal information and private life out of the public domain. The principle of privacy is essential to human dignity and the protection of our autonomy, dignity, and personal identity. It is a fundamental right that has been recognized by the Constitution of many countries around the world.

The right to privacy is essential for protecting human rights, democracy, and personal freedom. It allows individuals to live their lives without fear of being monitored or surveilled by others. At the same time, it is essential to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the need to protect national security, public safety, and law enforcement.

The concept of privacy has become increasingly complex with the advancement of technology and the rise of the internet. Our personal information is now stored online, and we leave digital footprints of our every move on social media and other online platforms. This has made it more challenging to protect our personal information and ensure that our privacy is respected.

The Right to Privacy and the Law

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right, and it is recognized by international treaties and many countries’ Constitutions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to privacy in Article 12, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further elaborates on the right to privacy in Article 17.

At the same time, different countries have different laws and regulations when it comes to privacy. In the United States, for example, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This has been interpreted by the courts to include the right to privacy.

In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became enforceable in 2018. The GDPR is a set of regulations that protect EU citizens’ privacy rights and set out rules about how personal data can be collected, processed, and stored. These rules apply to any organization that processes the personal data of EU citizens, regardless of where the organization is located.

In India, the right to privacy was upheld as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in 2017. This decision was a significant milestone in the country’s history and affirmed citizens’ right to personal autonomy and individual freedom. The right to privacy in India is now protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and is enforced by the courts.

Data Protection and Privacy Regulations

Data protection and privacy regulations are essential for ensuring that individuals’ personal information is protected and that their privacy rights are respected. These regulations set out rules for collecting, using, and storing personal data and are designed to prevent the misuse of personal information.

The GDPR is one of the most comprehensive data protection regulations in the world. It requires organizations to gain consent from individuals before collecting their personal data and gives individuals the right to know what data is being collected, who is collecting it, and how it is being used. They also have the right to request that their data be deleted.

In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) sets out regulations for protecting individuals’ healthcare information. The regulations require healthcare providers to obtain written consent before disclosing protected health information and ensure that healthcare information is kept secure.

Privacy concerns have also arisen with the development of new technologies such as facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence. These technologies have the potential to infringe on individuals’ privacy and personal autonomy. Regulations are needed to ensure that these technologies are being used in ethical and responsible ways.

The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

In recent years, the right to privacy has become increasingly complex with the rise of the internet and new technologies. The digital age has brought many benefits, but it has also made it easier for governments, corporations, and individuals to monitor and surveil people’s online activities.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 brought the issue of privacy to the forefront of public consciousness. The scandal involved a political consulting firm harvesting data from millions of Facebook profiles without users’ consent. This highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability when it comes to collecting and using personal data.

The rise of social media has also raised concerns about online privacy. Social media platforms collect a vast amount of personal data, including our likes, dislikes, and our social connections. This data can be used to target advertising and influence our behavior. It is important to ensure that individuals’ privacy rights are respected when it comes to social media platforms.

The Future of Privacy

The right to privacy is essential for protecting human dignity and our autonomy. It is essential to strike a balance between privacy and national security, public safety, and law enforcement. The advancement of technology and the rise of the internet have made it more challenging to protect our personal information and ensure that our privacy is respected.

Privacy regulations, such as the GDPR, are essential for protecting our privacy rights. However, technology is continually changing, and it is essential to ensure that regulations keep up with these changes.

In the future, privacy regulations must balance protecting individuals’ privacy rights with allowing for innovation and economic growth. The rise of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology will require innovative solutions to ensure that privacy is protected while promoting innovation and growth.

In conclusion, the right to privacy is a fundamental human right that is essential for protecting our autonomy and personal identity. Privacy regulations such as the GDPR and HIPAA are essential for ensuring that our personal information is protected. The rise of the internet and new technologies has made it more challenging to protect our personal information and ensure that our privacy is respected. It is essential to strike a balance between privacy and national security, public safety, and law enforcement. The future of privacy requires innovative solutions that balance protecting individuals’ privacy rights with allowing for innovation and economic growth.

Right to Privacy in the United States

The United States Constitution does not contain any explicit right to privacy. However, The Bill of Rights expresses the concerns of James Madison along with other framers of the Constitution for protecting certain aspects of privacy.

For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects the privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives the privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments.

The issue of whether the Constitution actually protects the right to privacy in ways not described in the Bill of Rights is a controversial subject. Originalists often argue that there is no general right to privacy within the constitution. However, as early as 1923 the Supreme Court, recognized through decisions, that the liberty given in the 14th amendment guarantees a relatively broad right of privacy in regards to procreation, child-rearing, marriage, and medical treatment termination.

Two decisions by the Supreme Court during the 1920s solidified this view of the 14th amendment. They found the liberty clause of the 14th amendment to prohibit the states from trying to interfere with the private decisions of parents and educators when shaping the children’s education. During the case Meyer v Nebraska in 1923, the Supreme Court said that a state law that did not allow the teaching of German or other foreign languages to students before the ninth grade was unconstitutional.

The issue of the right to privacy regained momentum in the 1960s during Griswold v Connecticut where the Supreme Court said that the state law prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, and contraceptives to couples who were married was unconstitutional. There were different reasons for this based on the judge, whether it was the gray area of the law or the zone of privacy created by the Bill of Rights.

In 1969, the court ruled on Stanley v Georgia in a unanimous decision staying that an individual had the right to privacy to have and watch pornography, even if the pornography could potentially be the basis for any prosecution against the distributor or manufacturer. The opinion stated that the State could not tell a person who was in his own home what he movies he could watch or what books he could read.

More recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to privacy. For example, in the 1990 case Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health, the Court found that individuals had the right to make their own decisions about terminating medical treatments that were life-prolonging. Another case was Lawrence v Texas in 2003 where a sodomy law in Texas that prohibited homosexual sodomy was struck down by the Supreme Court.

An Overview of the 24th Amendment – Simplified & Explained

The 24th Amendment: Ensuring Equal Voting Rights for All Americans

Introduction

The 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a testament to the nation’s ongoing commitment to expanding and safeguarding the right to vote for all citizens, regardless of their economic status. Enacted on January 23, 1964, the amendment abolished the poll tax, a regressive and discriminatory practice that had long hindered the exercise of voting rights, especially among African Americans in the southern states. In this comprehensive article, we will delve into the history, significance, and impact of the 24th Amendment, exploring its roots in the struggle for voting rights and its lasting effects on American democracy.

Historical Context and the Poll Tax

The Legacy of Voting Discrimination

The 24th Amendment was born out of the broader civil rights movement that sought to dismantle institutionalized racial discrimination. African Americans and other minority groups faced systemic barriers to voting, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory practices. These tactics effectively suppressed the political power of minority communities, especially in the southern states.

The Poll Tax as a Tool of Disenfranchisement

Among these discriminatory practices, the poll tax stood as a particularly effective means of disenfranchisement. The poll tax required citizens to pay a fee in order to vote in federal elections. This fee disproportionately affected lower-income individuals and marginalized communities, making it a powerful tool for limiting the political influence of the economically disadvantaged.

Early Efforts to Combat the Poll Tax

Efforts to eliminate the poll tax began long before the 24th Amendment’s passage. Organizations like the NAACP and civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks actively campaigned against this discriminatory practice. Litigation and advocacy were critical in challenging the legality and constitutionality of the poll tax.

The Road to the 24th Amendment

Congressional Action

In the early 1960s, as the civil rights movement gained momentum, the poll tax came under increasing scrutiny. Congress took up the cause, recognizing the need to address this barrier to voting rights. In August 1962, the House of Representatives passed a resolution proposing the 24th Amendment to the states for ratification.

State Ratification Process

The amendment’s journey to becoming law required ratification by three-fourths of the states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. This process was not without its challenges, as it involved intense political debates in state legislatures, particularly in the South, where opposition to the amendment was fierce.

Ratification and the Amendment’s Passage

Despite the opposition, the 24th Amendment was ultimately ratified by the required number of states. It officially became part of the Constitution on January 23, 1964. This momentous achievement marked a significant milestone in the ongoing fight for civil rights and equal voting rights for all Americans.

III. The Impact of the 24th Amendment

Immediate Repercussions

The passage of the 24th Amendment had immediate and far-reaching effects. It outlawed the use of the poll tax in federal elections, ensuring that no American citizen would be denied their right to vote based on their economic status. This was a pivotal victory for civil rights activists and a major step towards dismantling voter suppression tactics.

Influence on Subsequent Legislation

The 24th Amendment set a powerful precedent for further legislation aimed at protecting voting rights. It laid the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate other discriminatory practices such as literacy tests and racial gerrymandering. The amendment’s success served as a rallying point for advocates of equal voting rights, inspiring further legal and political action.

Contemporary Relevance

Challenges to Voting Rights

While the 24th Amendment represented a significant victory, challenges to voting rights persist in contemporary America. Efforts to restrict voting access, such as voter ID laws and voter purges, have sparked debates over the extent to which such practices may disenfranchise marginalized communities.

Voting as a Fundamental Right

The 24th Amendment, as well as subsequent voting rights legislation, underscores the idea that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship. It is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing citizens to have a say in their government and the policies that affect their lives. This perspective highlights the enduring importance of protecting and expanding access to the ballot box.

Conclusion

The 24th Amendment’s abolition of the poll tax was a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for equal voting rights in the United States. It was a clear statement that the economic status of a citizen should never be a barrier to their participation in the democratic process. While progress has been made, the fight for voting rights continues today. The 24th Amendment serves as a reminder of the power of collective action, advocacy, and the enduring commitment to justice and equality for all Americans. It stands as a testament to the principle that every voice should be heard and every vote should count, ensuring a stronger, more inclusive democracy for generations to come.

24th Amendment Overview

The 24th amendment is one of the most significant amendments in the US Constitution. It was ratified on January 23, 1964, and it prohibits poll taxes in federal elections. This amendment transformed the voting rights of millions of Americans and remains an important part of the ongoing struggle for civil rights in the United States.

Before the 24th amendment, several southern states used poll taxes to disenfranchise African Americans and other minority groups. A poll tax is a tax that must be paid in order to vote, which made it difficult for poor Americans to vote. Poll taxes first became widespread in the late 19th century and were used primarily by southern states to keep African Americans from voting. Many of these states implemented poll taxes as part of the Jim Crow laws that were designed to segregate and discriminate against African Americans.

The idea behind the poll tax was that if someone couldn’t pay the tax, they weren’t entitled to vote. This was an effective way to keep African Americans from voting, as they were often too poor to pay the tax and were therefore effectively shut out of the political process. This system of poll taxes was a powerful way to entrench the power of the white political establishment and keep minority groups from having a say in their own governance.

In 1962, the United States Supreme Court declared poll taxes unconstitutional in state elections in a case called Baker v. Carr. Two years later, the 24th amendment was ratified, which effectively extended the prohibition of poll taxes to federal elections. This meant that no longer could local and state governments use poll taxes to impede certain groups from voting. The 24th amendment was passed with overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans, reflecting a growing shift in the country away from discriminatory policies and towards a more equitable and fair democratic process.

The 24th amendment had a significant impact on civil rights in the United States. By removing poll taxes as a barrier to voting, millions of Americans who were previously disenfranchised were now able to participate in the democratic process. African Americans, in particular, were able to gain more political power and influence, which helped to address many of the injustices they experienced as a result of the Jim Crow laws.

The 24th amendment also had implications for the broader civil rights movement. It was part of a larger push towards greater equality and justice for minority groups in the United States. The amendment was one of several important milestones in the fight for civil rights, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided further protections against discriminatory voting practices.

Beyond its immediate impact on voting rights, the 24th amendment also had long-term effects on the political landscape of the United States. It helped to open the door for more diverse representation in government and gave marginalized communities a voice in the political process. Over time, this has led to the election of more diverse and representative leaders at the local, state, and federal levels.

However, the legacy of the 24th amendment remains unfinished. While it removed a significant barrier to voting, there are still many challenges facing minority communities in the United States. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other tactics are still used to dilute the political power of minority communities and prevent them from having their voices heard. Despite the progress that has been made, there is still a long way to go in the fight for true equality and justice for all Americans.

In conclusion, the 24th amendment is one of the most important amendments in the US Constitution. By prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections, it removed one of the most effective tools of voter disenfranchisement and helped to give minority communities a voice in the democratic process. It was a major milestone in the fight for civil rights and had long-term impacts on the political landscape of the United States. While there is still much work to be done to achieve true equality and justice for all Americans, the 24th amendment remains a powerful symbol of the ongoing struggle for civil rights in the United States.

What is the 24th Amendment?

“Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The 24th Amendment Defined

Date Proposed

The 24th Amendment was proposed on August 27th, 1962

Date Passed

The 24th Amendment was passed on January 23rd, 1964

President of the United States

Lyndon B. Johnson was the President of the United States during the ratification of the 24th Amendment

Stipulations of the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment expresses the inability of a Federal or State government to deny a citizen of the United States the right to vote as a result of failure to satisfy the required payments of a poll tax

The poll tax was a tax that was prevalent within Southern states; as its name suggests, a poll tax was instituted in order to validate an individual’s right to vote subsequent to the payment of the tax; poll taxes were typically instituted with regard to specific races and socioeconomic classes in lieu of institution based on property and possessions

The 24th Amendment eliminated applicable Grandfather Clauses, legal exploitation, and prejudicial examinations with regard to the classification of the individuals required to satisfy a poll tax payment in order to retain the right to vote

24th Amendment Facts

The poll tax was deemed unconstitutional in 1966; the Supreme Court had deemed that it was in direct violation of the protection clause passed in the 14th Amendment

Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi were the only states to enforce a poll tax at the time of the ratification of the 24th Amendment; many lobbyists suspected the poll tax of further disenfranchising African Americans and prospective Northern sympathizers through the enforcement of contingency-based suffrage

John F. Kennedy had expressed an interest in eliminating the poll tax during his presidency

States Ratifying the 24th Amendment:

1. Alabama

2. Alaska

3. California

4. Colorado

5. Connecticut

6. Delaware

7. Florida

8. Hawaii

9. Idaho

10. Illinois

11. Indiana

12. Iowa

13. Kansas

14. Kentucky

15. Maine

16. Maryland

17. Massachusetts

18. Michigan

19. Minnesota

20. Missouri

21. Montana

22. Nebraska

23. Nevada

24. New Hampshire

25. New Jersey

26. New Mexico

27. New York

28. North Carolina

29. North Dakota

30. Ohio

31. Oregon

32. Pennsylvania

33. Rhode Island

34. South Dakota

35. Tennessee

36. Texas

37. Utah

38. Vermont

39. Virginia

40. Washington

41. West Virginia

42. Wisconsin

States Not Participatory in the Ratification of the 24th Amendment:

1. Arizona

2. Arkansas

3. Georgia

4. Louisiana

5. Mississippi

6. Oklahoma

7. South Carolina

8. Wyoming

Court Cases Associated with the 24th Amendment

Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) – this court case validated the legality of the poll tax, expressing that individual states were permitted to regulate the suffrage policies within their respective jurisdiction

Harper v. Virginia Board of elections (1966) – this court case overturned an individual state’s ability to regulate suffrage policies; as a result of this decision, the poll tax was deemed to be unconstitutional

States Rights

States’ Rights in the United States: A Comprehensive History and Analysis

Since the founding of the United States, the issue of states’ rights has been a constant source of debate. At its core, the issue is whether individual states have the right to govern themselves or whether the federal government has the power to override state laws and regulations. This debate has played out in many ways over the years, from the fight over slavery and the Civil War to the current battles over issues like healthcare and immigration.

The concept of states’ rights is closely linked to the idea of federalism, which is the idea that power should be distributed between the federal government and the states. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states or the people.

In this article, we will take a closer look at the history of states’ rights in the United States, examining how this issue has impacted the country and the ways in which different political groups have sought to assert their views on the topic.

Origins of the States’ Rights Debate

The debate over states’ rights began before the United States was even formed, as the colonies that would later become the states began to resist British attempts to exert greater control over them. After the American Revolution, this resistance continued as the new United States struggled to find a balance between the power of the federal government and the rights of individual states.

The issue of states’ rights came to a head in the early 19th century when the United States was expanding westward and new states were being admitted to the Union. Many of these new states were dealing with issues related to slavery, and the federal government was struggling to find a way to address this issue without infringing on states’ rights.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 attempted to resolve this issue by allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state while allowing Maine to enter as a free state, and by drawing a line across the country along which slavery would be allowed in some states but not in others. However, this compromise did not fully resolve the issue of states’ rights, and tensions continued to escalate over the coming decades.

The Civil War and the Issue of States’ Rights

The issue of states’ rights was a major factor in the outbreak of the Civil War, which began in 1861. The Confederate states, which seceded from the Union, cited states’ rights as a major reason for their decision to secede and form their own country.

At the heart of the conflict was the issue of slavery. The southern states believed that they had the right to govern themselves and to decide whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The federal government, led by President Abraham Lincoln, believed that the Union had the power to override state laws and regulations in order to abolish slavery and preserve the country.

The Civil War was a devastating conflict that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and left the country deeply divided. In the aftermath of the war, Reconstruction efforts aimed to restore the power of the federal government and to ensure that the rights of African Americans were protected. However, many white southerners continued to resist these efforts, leading to further conflict and tension in the years to come.

States’ Rights in the 20th Century

In the early 20th century, the issue of states’ rights began to take on new dimensions as the country faced a range of new challenges. One of the most significant of these challenges was the Great Depression, which led to widespread economic hardship and raised questions about the role of the federal government in addressing these issues.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented a range of programs and policies aimed at addressing the economic crisis, but many of these efforts were met with resistance from conservative politicians who believed that the federal government was overstepping its bounds and infringing on states’ rights.

In the years that followed, the issue of states’ rights continued to be a source of contention as the country dealt with a range of issues related to civil rights, the environment, and other major policy areas. At times, the federal government was able to assert its authority and implement new policies in these areas, while at other times, states were able to push back and maintain their own laws and regulations.

Recent Developments in States’ Rights

In recent years, the issue of states’ rights has taken on new importance in a number of areas. One of the most significant of these areas is healthcare, where the federal government has sought to implement new regulations and policies aimed at reforming the healthcare system.

Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the federal government sought to implement a range of new regulations and policies aimed at expanding access to healthcare and reducing costs. However, many conservative politicians and states have pushed back against these efforts, arguing that they represent an infringement on states’ rights.

Another major issue related to states’ rights is immigration, where the federal government has sought to implement new policies aimed at controlling the flow of people into the country. However, many states and localities have resisted these efforts, implementing their own policies and regulations aimed at protecting immigrants and ensuring that they are treated fairly.

Other recent developments related to states’ rights include the legalization of marijuana in some states, which has led to conflicts with federal drug laws, and the expansion of voting rights, where some states have implemented new laws and regulations aimed at restricting access to the ballot box.

Conclusion

The issue of states’ rights has been a constant source of debate and conflict in the United States, from the colonial era to the present day. While the country has made significant progress in addressing a range of issues related to civil rights, healthcare, and other major policy areas, the issue of states’ rights remains a contentious and important one.

As the country continues to grapple with new challenges and opportunities, it is likely that the issue of states’ rights will continue to be a source of debate and tension. However, by working together at the federal, state, and local levels, Americans can continue to address these issues and build a stronger, more resilient country for the future.

States’ rights are grounded in the United States Constitution under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that “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 interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been argued over the entire history of the United States. Where some interpret the Constitution to have a strict construction, meaning that the federal government is permitted pass laws in strict compliance within the specific language of the constitution others have interpreted the Constitution to allow the federal government to regulate and make laws that are “necessary and proper” to achieving the goals set forth in the “enumerated powers” of Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

The enumerated powers are a list of duties that Congress is entrusted with. These consist of 18 clauses outlining the duties of Congress. These include the authority to raise an army, to borrow money, lay taxes, coin money, create a post office, declare war, and create inferior federal courts, among others. Those individuals who stand for strict construction of the constitution believe that the authority given to Congress through these 18 clauses are black and white and that the federal government does not have the authority to expand Congress’s influence. Those who follow the expansionist view specifically focus on clause 18 of section 8 and the “necessary and proper” clause.

The necessary and proper clause, as stated in Article 1, section 8, clause 18 states that “the congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

What this means is that the federal government may create laws and regulations that are “necessary and proper” to achieve the goals of the federal government concerning the enumerated powers. A great example of the “necessary and proper” clause at work is by looking at the commerce clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

The commerce clause; under Article 1, section 8, clause 3 states that Congress has the authority “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” A state rights, strict constructionist, the view would look at this as being black and white, having the interpretation follow logically that Congress may regulate interstate travel on and goods that have been put in the stream of commerce. A more expansive viewpoint would be that of the holding of Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court found that the effects of a farmer growing too much wheat on his property, in the aggregate, would affect interstate commerce and, thus, Congress had the right to regulate it.

This argument over the rights designated to Congress through Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, and the 10th Amendment are the main points of argument held by those who follow state rights; and a strict constructionist view, and those who follow an expansionist view of the Constitution.

States Rights in United States History up to the Civil War

The argument of state rights began even before the drafting of the Constitution. Prior to the Constitution, the United States government was bound by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created in its strong respect for states’ rights and left a very weak federal government. Subsequently, during the drafting of the Constitution, one of the aims was to strengthen the federal government. Many proponents felt that states’ rights should be afforded greater weight and in that regard, the 10th Amendment was drafted to appease those individuals concerned with centralized power.

One of the first instances where the idea of state’s rights in the Constitution came to the forefront was during the Washington administration and the dispute over the creation of a national bank. Alexander Hamilton, then the secretary of the treasury, intended to use the enumerated powers, along with the necessary and proper clause, to create a national bank of the United States. Advocates of States rights such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that this was not within the strict construction of the Constitution.

Washington sided with Hamilton and upon the creation of the national bank essentially split the founders into two different sects and, in essence, was a large contributing factor to the creation of the first major parties in American politics; the Federalists, controlled by Washington and Adams, and the Republicans; dominated by Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists would argue on the platform of implied powers whereas the Republicans were advocates for “strict construction” and states’ rights.

The argument over implied powers and states’ rights came to a head once again during the Adams administration when the Federalist controlled Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition laws which prohibited actions, even verbal comments, against the government. The Republicans argued that this was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and Jefferson and Madison countered the acts by independently drafting the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions which were meant to assert state rights and send a message to the federal government that the States had a right to nullify laws proposed by the federal government to be too far-reaching. Essentially the resolutions claimed that the federal government served at the will of the states and that states’ rights were paramount to those proposed by the federal government.

The issue of States rights versus implied powers was resurrected once more during the Jefferson administration and the Louisiana purchase. Strict constructionists who advocated for states’ rights and the limitations on the powers of the federal government opposed the purchase, stating that it was not within the powers granted to the federal government to expand the nation beyond its current borders. Ironically, these arguments were brought against Jefferson, one of the original proponents for states rights and strict construction.

The implied powers of Congress were once again tested during the nullification acts of 1832. This issue came about due to tariffs that were imposed on goods that were being imported into the United States. In the current economic climate, the southern states relied on goods from Europe and from the northern states in order to meet their economic needs. Because of stiff competition with Europe, Congress, at the behest of the northern states imposed tariffs upon European goods shipped into the country.

The result was that the southern states were either reduced to dealing only with the northern states for necessary goods or paying higher prices for European goods. In response, South Carolina, under the policies of John C. Calhoun, proposed a reformulation of the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions. The new resolution essentially stated that the people in each state were sovereign and only by their will was there any power given to the state of federal governments. As a result, South Carolina refused to obey the tariff acts of 1828 or 1832 and in response, President Jackson asked Congress for the right to send in the navy and army for enforcement of the law.

The issue involving states’ rights versus implied powers really came to a head in the issue of slavery. Advocates of the implied powers claimed that the issue of slavery was one for the federal government to decide, as was done through the Compromise of 1820 and 1850. Advocates for state rights claimed that it was for each individual state to decide whether it should permit slavery within its borders and argued that the federal government was permitted to adopt rules and regulations but could not designate the policies that affected the states. States rights advocates won a battle on this issue with the holding in the Dredd Scott decision whereby Justice Taney declared that “The Government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the slave owner.”

The 14th Amendment

With the end of the civil war came Amendments to the Constitution banning slavery and calling for the equal treatment of African-Americans throughout the United States. In addition, the 14th Amendment attempted to lay to rest any idea of states rights usurping the Constitutional guarantees prescribed by the federal government. In this, the 14th Amendment contains, what is known as, the equal protection clause.

The equal protection clause is stated in section 1 of the Amendment and notes that “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 clause solidified the Constitution, and the Amendments to the Constitution, as being, not only a federal right but subjected the Amendments to the States as well.

States Rights and The Civil Rights Era

Probably the largest issue of states rights post-civil war came about during the civil rights movement. In response to Jim Crow, the federal government began a series of reforms, beginning with the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, which officially overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that “separate but equal”, was not constitutional.

In response, many proponents against integration declared that the federal government did not have the authority to require integration by the states as it would be a violation of state rights. States refused to integrate and it was not until a show of force by the federal government that the states began to recede from their previous stance.

States Rights and the Commerce Clause

One of the most contentious issues involving states rights is the issue involving the commerce clause. The federal government has been able to use the commerce clause in a number of situations to expand the authority of the federal government into areas where, without the necessary and proper clause, would be deemed to be an unconstitutional intrusion upon states’ rights. The federal government has been able to use the commerce clause to enter almost any situation where something is put into the stream of commerce. As discussed above, the case of Wickard v. Filburn took this to extreme lengths arguing the “aggregate” view.

Many issues have come to the forefront lately involving the death penalty, assisted suicide, gay marriage, gun rights, and the health care individual mandate.

Currently, the health care individual mandate that is one of the cornerstones of the Obama administration’s health care bill is working its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, the appellate courts have been split as to the constitutionality of the issue. States rights advocates for strict construction advocate that the Constitution’s enumerated powers, even with the expansive view of the commerce clause through the “necessary and proper” clause do not afford the federal government to mandate that an individual be required to pay for health care.

In the alternative, those who are against the state’s rights assertions argue that the commerce clause, along with the necessary and proper clause permits the federal government to mandate that each individual in this country pay for their own health care or face a penalty. It is yet to be determined where the high court will rule on this argument but it is a strong possibility that states rights advocates will be disappointed.

An Overview of the Bill of Rights

What is the Bill of Rights?

Upon its ratification on September 17th, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was considered to be the primary legislative document expressing the implicit legality and jurisdictional procedure within the United States of America.

The Bill of Rights – proposed in 1789, and subsequently ratified in 1791 – is the classification granted to the first 10 Constitutional Amendments to have been passed; these Amendments were passed in unison.

The History of the Bill of Rights

George Mason and James Madison are the 2 individuals primarily credited with the creation of the Bill of Rights, resulting from a collective concern addressing the lack of a Constitutional Clause providing the document with a procedural system for modifications and adjustments with regard to the original text.

George Mason and James Madison had understood that as the United States underwent progression, innovation, and an invariable paradigm shift, certain legal statues would require modification; in order to retain the innate framework of the Constitution of the United States while allowing for measures of adjustment and modernization, a policy was implemented with regard to the adoption of future – and potential – Constitutional Amendments

The Contents of the Bill of Rights

1st Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: This Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly

2nd Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The right to bear arms in a lawful manner with regard to self-protection; firearms covered under the 2nd Amendment do not address service within the Militia

3rd Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 3rd Amendment prohibits unlawful entry with regard to the private resident(s) in possession of citizens of the United States of America; the 3rd Amendment is not typically applicable to times of war

4th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

5th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 5th Amendment addresses the modern incarnation of the ‘Right to remain silent’; this Amendment also prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body

6th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 6th Amendment addresses legal procedure undertaken with regard to the prosecution – and investigation – of alleged criminal activity; this Amendment includes the right to a judicially-sound trial

7th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 7th Amendment affords individuals undergoing judicial trials with the right to be tried in accordance with the presence of a jury; juries present within judicial trials are indicated to consist of an individual’s ‘peers’

8th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

9th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights; this Amendment disallows for the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power

10th Amendment

Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789

Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791

Contents of the Amendment: The 10th Amendment addresses the apportionment process latent within administrative responsibilities; this Amendment expressed that any or all administrative powers that have not been claimed by Federal or State governments become the responsibility of the general populace

A Background to the Constitutional Convention

What is the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitutional Convention, which is also known as the Philadelphia Convention, was a conference that took place in Philadelphia in the year 1787 between May 5th and September 17th; the ratification of the Constitution of the United States signaled the end of the Constitutional Convention – this convention was called in order to solidify and finalize a finished Constitution of the United States.

What Spawned the Constitutional Convention?

The Articles of Confederation – the first piece of national legislature adopted by the United States of America subsequent to the end of the Revolutionary – served as the primary piece of administrative legislation after gaining their respective independence from England:

The authors of the Constitution of the United States cited the Articles of Confederation to be reactionary to the unpleasant conditions under which citizens of the United States lived with regard to the totalitarian rule under King George II of England

The authors of the Constitution deemed that the lack of any governmental power established a lack of organization, as well as national unity

The Articles of Confederation limited the jurisdiction of the central government to the military, postal service, regulation of currency, and the authorization of foreign policy

The central government was granted no authority over the 13 states, which were considered to be sovereign bodies

Which Events Preceded the Constitutional Convention?

In 1785, a Convention was held at Mt. Vernon – commonly referred to as the Mount Vernon Convention – in order to discuss potential action with regard to the separation of the Potomac River with regard to the vague precepts conveyed within the Articles of Confederation. Federalists Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, as well as pundits including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, were in attendance – as a result of this meeting, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation in lieu of an updated legislature was proposed.

Ratification and the Constitutional Convention

Due to a variety of complications within the approval process – stemming from varying degrees of disapproval from the individual State legislature, the Constitution of the United States underwent a vast array of editing and adjustment. The Final Draft of the Constitution of the United States was ratified on September 17th, 1787; 12 of the 13 United States approved of the Constitution – Rhode Island was the only state that refused to ratify the Constitution

States in Attendance at the Constitutional Constitution

Although 9 States initially participated in the Ratification of the Constitution on an individual basis, each of the original 12 States subsequently ratified the Constitution:

Delaware

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Georgia

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Maryland

South Carolina

New Hampshire

Who Attended the Constitutional Convention?

Subsequent to the conference in Mt. Vernon, a draft of the Constitution of the United States was completed as a result of the Constitutional Convention; 39 individuals signed the Constitution of the United States – the following influential figures were in attendance at the Constitutional Convention:

Alexander Hamilton, both a state representative from New York, as well a member of the Federalist Party, has been credited with the initial ideology expressed in the Constitution

James Madison is renowned for his contribution to the authorship of the Federalist Papers, as well as the recognition with regard to the facilitation of the Bill of Rights

George Washington was appointed as the head of the Constitutional Convention by the attendees

Ron Paul: Al-Awlaki Killing is Unconstitutional

Former Congressman Ron Paul has taken issue with the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. Paul argues that the killing was unconstitutional and raises serious questions about the United States government’s authority to target and kill its own citizens without due process.

Violation of Due Process

Paul argues that the killing of Al-Awlaki violated the Constitution’s due process clause, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A key component of due process is the right to a fair and impartial trial, which Al-Awlaki was never given.

Instead, the government relied on secret evidence and classified information to justify its decision to kill him. Paul argues that this sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law in the United States. He believes that any American citizen accused of a crime, no matter how serious, should be given the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.

The War on Terror

Paul is also critical of the government’s justification for the killing of Al-Awlaki: that he was an enemy combatant in the war on terror. Paul argues that the war on terror has become a justification for unchecked executive power and has been used to justify a range of questionable activities, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

Paul believes that the use of targeted killing to eliminate perceived threats is a dangerous precedent that opens the door to abuse and undermines the principles of the Constitution. He argues that the government’s first duty is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens and that the war on terror has effectively reversed this priority.

Conclusion

Ron Paul’s criticisms of the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki raise important questions about the limits of executive power in the United States. Paul believes that the government’s decision to target and kill an American citizen without due process is a clear violation of the Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent for future abuses of power.

While the war on terror has undoubtedly changed the way the United States approaches national security, Paul believes that it is imperative to uphold the principles of the Constitution and protect the rights and liberties of all citizens, no matter how unpopular or controversial they may be. Armed with this conviction, Ron Paul continues to fight for the principles of liberty and individual rights that are essential to the American way of life.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul claims that the targeted killing of American-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

The Texas Congressman and contender for the GOP declared that because of President Obama’s “flouting” of the law, impeachment is definitely possible.

According to Paul, the assassination of any American citizen, regardless of the reason, is a drastic leap towards “tyranny.” Paul’s backlashing came after the Obama administration announced the killing of the prominent al Qaeda figure.

Court Split over Miranda Rights Case

Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark case in United States law that established the requirement of the Miranda warning before law enforcement interrogations. Despite this clear precedent, recent court cases have shown a split among judges over the interpretation and application of Miranda rights. This article will explore this split and its implications for the future of Miranda rights.

Background

The Miranda warning is a statement that informs suspects of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. It is named after the defendant in Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, who was not informed of his rights during his arrest and interrogation. The Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that such a warning is necessary to protect a suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.

Split Among Judges

Despite the clear precedent set by Miranda v. Arizona, recent cases have shown a split among judges over the interpretation and application of Miranda rights. In some cases, judges have interpreted Miranda more narrowly, allowing law enforcement to use certain statements or evidence obtained during interrogations even if the defendant was not properly informed of their rights.

For example, in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that a suspect who did not explicitly invoke their right to remain silent during an interrogation had waived that right. This decision has been criticized by some legal experts as a loosening of Miranda protections.

Implications

This split among judges over the interpretation and application of Miranda rights has implications for the future of these protections. It raises important questions about the scope and limits of Miranda, and whether its protections are being eroded over time.

On one hand, some argue that the narrow interpretations of Miranda are necessary to allow law enforcement to effectively investigate and prosecute crimes. They argue that strict adherence to Miranda can lead to the exclusion of important evidence and limit the ability of law enforcement to get to the truth in certain cases.

On the other hand, others argue that Miranda protections are essential to protecting individual rights against government overreach and abuse. They warn that allowing too many exceptions to Miranda could undermine the fundamental principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

Conclusion

Miranda v. Arizona remains an important precedent in United States law, but recent court cases have shown a split among judges over the interpretation and application of Miranda rights. This split raises important questions about the scope and limits of Miranda, and whether its protections are being eroded over time. As legal experts continue to debate these issues, it will be important to carefully consider the balance between individual rights and law enforcement needs in criminal investigations.

The Supreme Court was divided on Tuesday regarding whether it is mandatory for police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them concerning crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.

The Supreme Court heard arguments from lawyers across the country who seek the termination of a federal appeals court decision, which overturned the conviction of Randall Lee Fields.

Fields were serving a 45-day sentence in prison for a disorderly conduct conviction when a prison guard removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him he could leave at any time, then questioned Fields for hours regarding allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields ultimately confessed to the crime and he was sentenced to an additional 10 to 15 years in prison.

Fields appealed the use of his confession, claiming that he was never awarded his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges. On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out Fields’ confession and conviction, by ruling that it is required for police to read Miranda rights to inmates anytime they are isolated from the prison population or in situations where they could potentially incriminate themselves.

An Overview of the Amendments

What are the Amendments?

An Amendment – also known as a Constitutional Amendment – is textual and legislative adjustments with regard to the alteration of the original text expressed within the initial version of the Constitution of the United States, which was ratified on June 21st, 1788. The Bill of Rights is a collection of the first 10 Constitutional Amendments passed subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution; the Bill of Rights was passed within 15 years of the initial date of ratification.

History of Amendments

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison introduced a concern addressing the absence of a Constitutional Clause providing a system for both the amendment and adjustment of the original text:

· Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, an applicable clause formulating an amendment process was created in order to substantiate any adjustment-based legislative process undertaken

· As of 2011, there currently exist 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

The 27 Constitutional Amendments

The following list illustrates each of the 27 Amendments in conjunction with their respective contents and ratification: