AMENDMENT VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Bail: Bail has traditionally meant payment by the accused of an amount of money specified by the court to insure the presence of the accused at trial. An accused who was released from custody and subsequently failed to appear for trial forfeited his bail to the court. The Eighth Amendment does not specifically provide that all citizens have a "right" to bail, but only that bail will not be excessive. A right to bail has, however, been recognized in common law and in statute since 1791. In 1966 Congress enacted the Bail Reform Act to provide for pretrial release of persons accused of noncapital crimes. Congress thus sought to end pretrial imprisonment of indigent defendants who could not afford to post money bail and who were, in effect, confined only because of their poverty. The Act also discouraged the traditional use of money bail by requiring the judge to seek other means as likely to insure that the defendant would appear when his trial was held. The lack of a specific constitutional guarantee has, nonetheless, indirectly contributed to legislative enactments which have modified the availability of bail. In 1970, Congress provided for a system of pretrial detention in the District of Columbia for those defendants considered to be dangerous and likely to commit additional crimes if released prior to trial. The law was highly controversial and is considered by many to be a violation of the right to bail which they implied in the Eighth Amendment. Whether bail, where it is available, is excessive or not will depend upon the facts of each particular case. In a few instances, as when a capital offense such as murder is charged, bail may be denied altogether. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Whether fines or periods of confinement are "cruel and unusual" must be determined on the facts of each particular case. Clearly excessive practices, such as torture, would be invalid. The Supreme Court has furthermore held the dealth penalty itself to be cruel and unusual. In addition to excessive forms of punishment, the clause has also been applied to imposition of punishment for a condition which the "criminal" had no power to change. Thus, a law making the status of narcotics addiction illegal was struck down by the Supreme Court as cruel and unusual since it punished a condition beyond the control of the accused. Some courts have held that laws punishing public drunkeness were "cruel and unusual" when applied to homeless alcoholics since it was impossible for them to avoid public places. AMENDMENT IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Privacy and Other Rights: The Ninth Amendment emphasizes the view of the Founding Fathers that powers of government are limited by the rights of the people, and that it was not intended, by expressly guaranteeing in the Constitution certain rights of the people, to recognize that government had unlimited power to invade other rights of the people. The Supreme Court has on at least one occasion suggested that this guarantee is a justification for recognizing certain rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, or for broadly interpreting those which are. The case which involved the Ninth Amendment was Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, decided in 1965. At issue was whether the right to privacy was a constitutional right and, if so, whether the right was one reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment or was only derived from other rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Courts have long recognized particular rights to privacy which are part of the First and Fourth Amendments. Thus, freedom of expression guarantees freedom of association and the related right to be silent and free from official inquiry into such associations. It also includes the right not to be intimidated by government for the expression of one's views. The Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure confers a right to privacy because its safeguards prohibit unauthorized entry onto one's property and tampering with a citizen's possessions or property, to include his very person. The court in Griswold ruled that the Third and Fifth Amendments, in addition to the First and Fourth created "zones of privacy" safe from governmental intrusion and, without resting its decision upon any one of these or on the Ninth Amendment itself, simply held that the right of privacy was guaranteed by the Constitution. AMENDMENT X 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. Reserved Powers: The Tenth Amendment embodies the principle of federalism which reserves for the States the residue of powers not granted to the Federal Government or withheld from the States. LATER AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT XIII 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. Involuntary Servitude: This Amendment prohibits slavery in the United States. It has been held that certain State laws were in violation of this Amendment because they had the effect of jailing a debtor who did not perform his financial obligations. The Supreme Court has ruled that selective service laws, which authorize the draft for military duty, are not prohibited by this Amendment. The courts have also justified certain civil rights legislation which condemned purely private acts of discrimination but which did not constitute "state action," on the basis of the authority granted in Section 2 of this Amendment and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is similar. An example is the civil rights legislation of 1866 and 1964 designed to end discrimination in the sale or rental of real or personal property. Such discriminatory practices were seen as "badges of servitude" which the Thirteenth Amendment was intended to abolish. AMENDMENT XIV 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 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Due process: The Fourteenth Amendment limits the States from infringing upon the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights-the first 10 Amendmentsdoes not specifically refer to actions by States, but applies only to action by the Federal Government. Through judicial interpretation of the term "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment, many of the Bill of Rights guarantees have been made applicable to action by State governments and their subdivisions, such as counties, municipalities, and cities. Under this principle certain rights and freedoms are deemed so basic to the people in a free and democratic society that State governments may not violate them, even though they are not specifically barred from doing so by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, as already seen, also contains a "due process" clause which applies to actions of the federal government. Equal protection: In addition to the "due process" clause, the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits denial of the "equal protection of the laws." This requirement prevents the State from making unreasonable, arbitrary distinctions between different persons as to their rights and privileges. Since "all people are created equal" no law could deny red-haired men the right to drive an automobile, although it can deny minors the right to drive. The State, therefore, remains free to make reasonable classifications. There are some classifications, however, which have been held to be patently unreasonable such as classifications based on race, religion, and national origin, for example. Thus, racial segregation in public schools and other public places, laws which prohibit sale or use of property to certain races or minority groups, and laws prohibiting interracial marriage have been struck down. The Supreme Court has furthermore held that purely private acts of discrimination can be in violation of the equal protection clause if such acts are customarily enforced throughout the state, whether or not there is a specific law or other explicit manifestation of action by the State. In another vein, the equal protection clause has been held to mean that a citizen may not arbitrarily be deprived of his right to vote and that every citizen's vote must be given equal weight as far as possible. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that state legislatures and local governments must be apportioned strictly in terms of their populations in such a way as to accord one man one vote. It is also to be noted that Section 5 of this Amendment provides the authority for much of the civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the 1960's. AMENDMENT XV The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. AMENDMENT XIX The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. AMENDMENT XXVI Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age. The Right to Vote: The intent and purpose of these three amendments are clear. The right to vote, which is the keystone of our democratic society, may not be denied any citizen over the age of 18 because of his race, color, previous condition of servitude, or sex. The Twenty-sixth Amendment which lowered the voting age for all elections from twenty-one to eighteen years of age became law on July 1, 1971. These amendments, together with the Fifth and Fourteenth, prohibit any arbitrary attempt to disenfranchise any American citizen. AMENDMENT XXIV 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. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poll Taxes: The Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibits denial of the right to vote for federal officials because a person has not paid a tax. This Amendment was designed to abolish the requirement of a poll tax which, at the time of its ratification, five states imposed as a condition to voting. The Supreme Court subsequently held that poll taxes were unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis that the right to vote should not be conditioned on one's ability to pay a tax. Accordingly, poll taxes in any election have been prohibited. AMENDMENT XXVII (PROPOSED) Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this Article. Equal rights: This amendment was proposed by two-thirds vote of Congress and submitted to the states for ratification on March 24, 1972. As of the date of this printing, it has been ratified by twenty state legislatures, and rejected by none. The object of the Amendment is to abolish unfair or unreasonable discriminations which the law makes against women, and which the courts have refused to otherwise invalidate under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CONCLUSION In addition to the specific constitutional rights outlined herein, certain safeguards for the individual are inherent in the structure of American government. The separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is the basis for a system of "checks and balances," which prevents excessive concentration of power-with the inevitable threat to individual liberties that accompanies such concentration. With respect to the legislative power itself, the existence of two Houses of Congress each chosen by a different process-is itself a protection against ill-advised laws that might threaten constitutional rights. Similarly, our Federal system, which divides authority between the National Government and the governments of the various States, has provided a suitable soil for the nourishment of constitutional rights. No matter how well a constitution may be written, the rights it guarantees have little meaning unless there is popular support for those rights and for that constitution. Fortunately, in the United States such support has existed. Indeed, in this country the most fundamental protection of personal liberty rests in the well-established American traditions of constitutional government, obedience to the rule of law, and respect for the individual. HISTORICAL NOTE On the 17th day of September 1787, a convention of delegates from twelve States1 (departing from their express instructions), proposed a new Constitution to the Congress and the States for ratification. The rights expressed and protected by this Constitution, and by the amendments adopted 4 years later, were not new. Some had roots in the societies of ancient Rome and Greece, and all were nurtured during almost 600 years of English history since the signing of the Magna Carta. As colonists under English rule, Americans before the Revolution were familiar with the ideas that government should be limited in power, and that the law was superior to any government, even the King. As the Declaration of Independence shows, the colonists rebelled because the English King and Parliament refused to allow them their historic rights as free Englishmen. In September 1774, 1 Rhode Island refused to appoint delegates to the convention. |