13th Amendment

"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"

To me, there is not much to be said about this amendment. It has been the first step of a long journey to equality. Something like slavery should not happen, but humankind are not impeccable as many incidents in history show. Bur this amendment has been very important in the process of equality between people.

"Use the 13th Amendment to Prosecute Modern-Day Slavery
The Thirteenth Amendment is a powerful and broadly-worded piece of legislation with tremendous potential in the fight against human trafficking. Unfortunately, however, the amendment has largely been relegated to the dustbin of history--an "antebellum grave marker," as one author has gone so far as to call it.
If the sweeping and broad language of the amendment could be harnessed to form a 21st-century jurisprudence against modern-day slavery, there could be profound progress in the prosecution of slaveholders today.
Indeed, a judicial precedent dating back to the nineteenth century seems to indicate that the 13th Amendment is to be interpreted not only to abolish domestic slavery, but even complicity in a purely foreign slave trade. Consider the so-called Slave Trade Cases of the mid-1800's. In one of these cases, defendants were charged with designing and outfitting ships to be used in the slave trade in foreign countries. Although it was never insinuated that the ships would be used to transport slaves to the United States, nor that the shipwrights were themselves slave traders, the Court ruled that the fact that “U.S. intermediaries had taken steps to facilitate a foreign trade in slaves by providing some of the implements best suited to that practice” was enough to render them guilty (Wolff 2002). The underlying premise of these Supreme Court rulings must not be ignored: “The indirect facilitation of a purely foreign slave trade by a U.S. citizen through the provision of ships and other equipment is inherently objectionable because it locates a component of that foreign slave trade within domestic borders" (ibid.). No aspect of the institution of slavery is to exist anywhere on American soil—not slaves themselves, not slave-like relationships, not items to be used in facilitating slavery abroad, and, presumably, not even items made with slave labor on foreign soil. This realization has tremendous implications for modern Thirteenth Amendment jurisprudence, in an economic world increasingly marred by modern-day slavery in manufacturing, agriculture, fishing, mining, and other industries.
The call to action, then, is for a respected and legal-savvy NGO to find a way to work a trafficking case up to the Supreme Court. International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org) seems the obvious choice, given its legal focus, professionalism, and expertise. Prosecute a trafficker on Thirteenth Amendment grounds in such as way as to win a Supreme Court hearing. Justices don't have to worry about re-election, so making controversial but ethically imperative decisions is their specialty. They are a superior avenue to Congress because they are less subject to lobbyist and special interest pressure, which would come heavily from the untold thousands of US corporations that knowingly or unknowingly use slave labor today.Thankfully, slavery is not a partisan issue. Real change is possible, and a rediscovery of the judicial power of the 13th Amendment in the context of 21st-century slavery would represent a tremendous leap forward in the anti-trafficking movement. Vote for this petition to encourage International Justice Mission to devote their legal expertise to this specific prospect, which represents a major step toward a slavery-free world."
- Andrew Hall Jan 25 @ 07:16PM PST

Source: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/use_the_13th_amendment_to_prosecute_modern-day_slavery

This arcticle seems to connect hisrory with the world today. The scars of slavery in this country have not faded yet and still even the descendents if former slaves support hidden slavery by buying cheap stuff amde in China or buying exotic fruits from farmers in South America. This is a problem of all the industry nations today as they cannot produce anything as cheap as other countries that do not have any labor laws protecting the people. Nevertheless, is is also about having not enough money to buy the products produced in the own country. Poor people have to rely on cheaply manufactured products and there has to be a solution to help both sides out.

Obama&Congres Ignore 13th Amendment! This Is A Form Of Slavery!

Linda | Myspace Video

This video is ridiculous to me. Communtity service is NOT comparable to slavery. It is an important aspect of society. Community service if it has to be done because of a criminal act might be involutary, but going into prison is also involuntary. In the end the delinquent has to suffer for what he/she has done.
And to a German this is a very funny thought. In Germany the military service is still not voluntary for male inhabitants. If they do not want to serve in military for whatever reasons, they have to serve for the community. To me this is a very important service as the young people can serve their community already when they are young. This law shoul just also apply to women who were excluded because of their household duties.

12th Amendment

"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."

This amendment to me seems also to be quite important as the president and vice president have to be voted on seperately. It might be hard to be a vice president if the president is of a different political party. In addition, it seems important to me that the vice president has to have the same qualifications as the president. In the case of his/her death, the VP has to take over and therefore has to have the qualification and ability to govern this country.

"CBS 2 School: Dancing With The 12th Amendment

November 22, 2010 8:30 AM

From Adam Harrington

Bristol Palin, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr might share something in common after this season’s “Dancing with the Stars.”
While her dancing skills have improved during the course of the show, Palin has never been considered a top celebrity dancer at any point during this DWTS season. But the show’s online voting system has helped Palin land in the final round despite consistently poor scores from the judges.
According to Sun-Times columnist Bill Zwecker, Dancing with the Stars sources have been stunned by the degree of public support for Palin. Some online speculators even indicate that this season’s results have made ABC consider significant changes to its DWTS voting system.
The fate of DWTS contestants is based on a merger of scores from the judges plus votes from the public. If ABC overhauls this selection method, it could be the biggest electoral system overhaul since the 12th amendment in 1804.
The Constitution was written in 1787, well before the invention of reality TV. But when determining how the President of our new republic would be selected, the Framers preferred the Survivor method over the American Idol method.
Many of the Framers did not trust the masses and feared that the direct popular vote would lead to uneducated choices by uneducated citizens. American Idol has employed this direct voting method from the beginning, but its system of winnowing down candidates each week guarantees the winner can secure a majority of support when it comes down to the final two contestants.
Originally, our Electoral College was supposed to resemble Survivor’s tribal council. In Survivor, the final 10 contestants get to determine the winner of the $1 million prize. This tribal council constitutes a panel of experts who have spent the most time with the final two contestants and can theoretically make the most educated vote for the most deserving candidate.
This is how the Electoral College worked the first two times it selected George Washington unanimously. But in our third and fourth presidential elections, Electors started voting based on partisan backing rather than selecting the most qualified candidate. In 1796, this system created chaos with the election of President John Adams with his archrival, Thomas Jefferson, as vice president. Then in 1800, Aaron Burr nearly stole the presidential election when the House of Representatives had to select the winner between him and Thomas Jefferson.
By 1804, the Constitution was changed to address this partisan nature of Electoral voting. The 12th Amendment created the Electoral College system that we use today allowing for electoral votes to be cast for a slate of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The 12th Amendment still stands as the only change that has had to be made to the Constitution due to the development of political parties.
If Bristol Palin’s success brings changes to Dancing with the Stars, we can place her name along with Jefferson and Burr as Americans who caused some of this country’s most significant changes to its electoral systems."

Source: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2010/11/22/cbs-2-school-dancing-with-the-12th-amendment/

This article, even if it exagerates a little bit the importance of the show "Dancing with the stars" shows how alive the Constitution is till today. With finding these parallels between Jefferson, Burr and Palin the author shows the importance of changes in voting systems if something goes wrong.

In my opinion, this video shoes how one can manipulate people very easily. It is like cheating if Dick Cheyney moved into a different state just three days before proclaiming to become the Vice President. It is true that the 12th amendment states that the President and VP should not be citizens of the same state. Nevertheless there has not been a big turmoil about this. To me this seems kind of hypocritical. People like to point out the importance of some Amendments like the 1st, 5th or even the 2nd to some. No offense, they are important. Nevertheless, one should do something 100% or one should leave it.
And by the way: if the VP is not part of the executive, what is he then?

11th Amendment

"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."

This amendment to me points out again, how important it was for the Framers that there is not a too powerful central government. Citizens or the federal government should not be able to sue any state in any case in a federal court. Nevertheless, they can waive this right if it seems to be important to them.

"Obama Adminstration Violates 11th Amendment of Bill of Rights. Treason?

Phoenix : AZ : USA | Jul 07, 2010

By Rustyn Rose 

This week the Obama administration followed through on threats to sue the State of Arizona to block the enactment of the Senate Bill 1070 which is scheduled to take effect on July 29th. A bill which will allow Arizona law enforcement to enforce current Federal laws that the government has failed to do. Arizona is under attack from the south, and from Washington D.C.
Arizona Governor Jan BrewerJan Brewer is not backing down. “As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” she said. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice… These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”
Peter Spiro, a Temple Law Professor, and international law expert does not believe Obama and the government have much of a case. In a recent He Wall Street Journal article Spiro said: “The lawsuit is not a slam dunk for the federal government, by a long shot, nothing in the Constitution says anything about immigration. But it goes back to the late 19th century, in which the power became vested in the general foreign affairs power.”

This is a violation of the 11th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It's a violation of the Constitution.
"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."
In Short, the U.S. Government may not sue any State Government.
The Mexican/U.S. border is turning into a bloody siege, with bullets flying into American buildings and citizens. U.S. citizens are being kidnapped, threatened, and killed. U.S. officials are being threatened and killed, including threats against Arizona law enforcement members.
A few weeks ago, Arizona senator John Kyl met with President Obama in the Oval Office and discussed securing the borders, and according to Kyl was told that if the borders were secured the GOP would have no impetus to reform immigration policy.
"The problem is...if we secure the border then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform." Kyl said, quoting the President.
"In other words, they're holding it hostage," the Arizona senator continued amidst gasps from the audience. "They don't want to secure the border unless or until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
Obama is not only holding security on our borders hostage, but the lives and well-being of the citizens he's sworn to serve.
Obama supporters and liberals can curse GeorgeGeorge BushBush (as they should) and the conservatives all they wish, but Obama's behavior borders on treason. He is now no better than Bush and Cheney, and arguably worse."

Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6255612-obama-adminstration-violates-11th-amendment-of-bill-of-rights-treason

This article to me is a little over the top. The governing body might act against the Constitutions and there could be some other way to stop this Arizona law. But, to me this law is ridiculous and as well unconstitutional as it is racist. Racist against Hispanic people to soley assume they might be illegal because of their appearance. So, in the end, both approaches are not right, but do two wrongs make a right?




This video shows in my opinion that there is a lot of grey area in the case of sueing a state and if this is constitutional. in the case of the Family Medical Leave Act it had to be looked at if in history there had been obviously a discrimination on a certain basis. This seemed to me a fair treatment as women are more assumed to care for family members than men (still) and therefore there had been the right to sue a state. Nevertheless, this is still to be decided on a case to case basis in front of the Surpreme Court as each case is different and might not aplly to any unconstitutionality.

10th Amendment

"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."

This last amendment of the Bill of rights gives the states powers that help them excercise their duties. It helps to restrain the power of the federal government through the history of suppression of the British Commonwealth in the past. Nevertheless, in some cases it would make more sense to have the same rights and powers in all states.

"Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

By James Osborne

Published May 26, 2009

FOXNews.com

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.
-- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights.

At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

"This has been boiling for years, and it's finally come to a head," said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. "With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head."

The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:

The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state's gun manufacturers to produce "Made in Montana" firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.

The Montana law is expected to end up in the courts, where states' rights activists hope judges will uphold their constitutional right to regulate firearms.

That would reverse a longstanding trend, said Martin Flaherty, a professor of constitutional law at Fordham Law School.

"From 1937 to 1995 there is not one instance of the Supreme Court knocking back Congress," he said. "In the Constitution the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce between the states. That gives them a lot of power. There were questions of how far they can reach, but then comes the New Deal, and Roosevelt gets all these picks on the [Supreme] Court, and they come upon a theory whereupon congressional power is almost infinite."

That 1930s understanding of the Constitution is now the norm, with advocates for the federal government arguing that issues of a certain size and scope can be addressed only by an institution with the resources of the federal government.

As an example, federal authority is necessary in the economic crisis, said U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, whose home state of Oklahoma recently passed a sovereignty resolution.

"The economic situation in our nation over the past year has not been contained in any one community or state. The industries and institutions affected by the recent economic crisis touch multiple layers of our economy and are not confined to any one state or region," he said in a statement. "I feel there was Constitutional justification for Congress's recent efforts to stabilize our economy."

But for many state leaders, the degree to which Congress regulates issues within their boundaries, using the interstate commerce clause to regulate just about everything and anything, has become untenable.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made headlines recently when he made a passing reference to the possibility of the Lone Star State seceding from the U.S., saying, "if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"

States rights advocates offer countless examples of what they believe is Washington's overreach.

In Utah, 67 percent of the state's land is controlled by the federal government through wilderness preserves, limiting state leaders in their bid to fill government coffers through oil and natural gas drilling after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancelled 103,000 acres of leases this year.

In Idaho, ranchers are furious that federal endangered species law prevents them from shooting the wolves that prey on their cattle.

"The balance of power between the states and the federal government is way out of whack," said Georgia state Senator Chip Pearson." The effect here is incalculable. Everything you do from the moment you wake up until you get to bed, there is some federal law or restriction."

Up until recently, the state sovereignty movement has remained almost entirely Republican, drawing supporters from the ranks that voted against President Obama and attended tea parties last month to protest federal tax hikes.

But the movement's rank and file are just as likely now to criticize Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as they are the new president, pointing to what they believe were Bush's overreaching policies on education and homeland security.

Many are becoming frequent visitors to a Web site, TenthAmendmentCenter.com, which was founded in early 2007 and has become a community bulletin board for states rights activists and politicians. Up to 20,000 viewers log on to the site every day.

The site's founder, Michael Boldin, a 36-year-old Web marketer in Los Angeles who says he has no political affiliation, says he decided to launch the site after watching the Maine State Legislature fight the Department of Homeland Security on the Real ID act, a controversial Bush-era law that will require states to issue federally regulated identification cards, complete with biometric data and stringent address checks.

"Maine resisted, and the government backed off, and soon all these other states were doing the same thing," Boldin said. "The bottom line is, if there's widespread support, people can resist the federal government at the state level."

The deadline for states to comply with Real ID has now been pushed back until 2011.

The Tenth Amendment movement is not without controversy. In Georgia, a columnist for The Atlanta Journal Constitution called a sovereignty resolution in the state Senate a threat "to secede from and even disband the United States."

The resolution, which was passed as part of a group of bills that were banded together, affirmed the state's powers under the Tenth Amendment, taking its inspiration and language from Thomas Jefferson's 1798 resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts -- laws enacted by the federal government during wartime to quiet protest against the government.

The resolution asserts that any instance of the federal government taking action beyond its enumerated powers "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

"It's been taken out of context by some editors," said Pearson, who sponsored the bill. "It certainly never meant secession. The intent was to communicate that the actions of the federal government are an infringement on states' rights."

Robert Natelson, a law professor at the University of Montana who was involved in drawing up that state's sovereignty resolution over a decade ago, argues that states up until now have been unwilling to take action of any real consequence in checking federal power.

"Back then they passed the resolution, but they didn't turn down any federal dollars," he said.

"If the states are serious about returning the federal government to its historical origins, they're going to have to do more than pass resolutions. They're going to have to turn down money and litigate.""

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/tenth-amendment-movement-aims-power-states/

The 10th amendment gives the stated rights that are not given to the federal government. Now the states want to resist the power of the Government which is in their mind to powerful. To me this makes sense in certain boundaries to revel up against legislatures that they think are not useful in their states as the restriction to shoot wolfs that pray on the cattle. Nevertheless, I think it is hard to balance the needs of all the people in this country and I do not think that there is any sense in trying to revolutionize the country and be an own state. Especially in these days when the US still has to struggle with the economy, the states rely on the federal Government for money and other messures to help them in this situation. If they were an own country, they would have to help out themselves which from my point of view they are not capable to.

This kind of makes no sense to me, that states want their sovereignty. What would they do without the help of the federal government? Be their own country? Coin their own money? It is not like there is any oppression or violence in this country nor any dictatorship. Democracy rules and the federal states have to accept this. And they did as up to now there are still all states in the union.

9th Amendment

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

This amendment is very important as it gives the people the rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Thsi documents taht the constitution is a living document and has to change and adjust itself to different times.

"February 23, 2005

The Forgotten Ninth Amendment

Here's a quick Constitutional law quiz: Name the last case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Amendment was a substantive limit to the reach of the Government power.
Having trouble? Let's change the angle of visions, then. Name the first.
If you are stumped, there is a reason. The Ninth Amendment is a dead letter in American law. If there is a case in which a majority of the Court has ever given the Amendment teeth, I missed it. 
The United States Supreme Court agreed this week to hear the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, a federal challenge to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law.  The law was upheld last fall by the Ninth Circuit. In Oregon, a doctor may help a terminally ill patient die. This is a classic example of a state's exercise of its police power to assure the health and welfare of its citizens.
How did the federal government stick its nose under this tent flap?
The feds are pressing an interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act that limits the use of such substances to "legitmate medical purpose." Doctors who help terminally ill patients die violate that act, saith Uncle Sam. Except, of course, when the Government wants to kill someone, in which case it is all right. Side note: Do death row inmates have a right to die? Devil's Advocate
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's the Ninth Amendment. It speaks of a government of limited powers, and of a free people yielding only so much authority over themselves as has been expressly granted. It reminds the Government that silence is not an invitation to tyranny. Put another way, just because only certain rights are referred to in the Bill of Rights does not mean that we have forfeited everything else to the State.
The Oregon case is a perfect case to test the Ninth Amendment. I hope it is briefed and pressed. It is obscene to be required to petition the Government for the right to die. Death is, alas, akin to a duty; it is the price Nature exacts for the joy of living.
A right to die? Silly. Rather, by what right does the Government say live you must?"

Source: http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2005/02/the_forgotten_n.html

The help of doctors to terminate ones life is to me a very controversial issue. On the one side, a person has the right to end his/her life if he/she sees no way out, i.e. in the case of aggressice cancer etc. Nevertheless, the doctors have sworn an oath to help people to get healthy. This kind of forbids them to kill people. Still, if there is no hope and the family wants it to, they can pull the plug and end life supporting machines. This is also some kind of help to die. I think, doctors should not be allowed to help people die as in the future there might be cures for illnesses that today cannot be cured. Who would have though 20 years ago that HIV positive people could survive and life their lives in a good way with taking the medcine today?



To me, the equality of marriage may it be homo- or heterosexual is a natural right and I am proud that in Germany same sex marriage is allowed. Germany still is a christian nation. Nevertheless, no one can force ones own religion on others and forbid them to marry and love whoever they want. So this is clearly a right to me that should be given to the people.

8th Amendment

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

I personally agree with the first part of this amendment as it is not fair to impose excessive bail to people just to keep them in prison without any reliable reason. Nevertheless, I have a problem with the death penalty. I think nobody has the right of taking the life of others because then we are not better than the murderer him(herself. This is an action that cannot be reversed and human behavior is not withou fault. Therefore, since there is a chance of error, this penalty should never ever be excercised. It is a cruel punishment and should be abolished on these grounds.

"Is the death penalty Constitutional?

The execution last week in Texas of Betty Lou Beets for the murder of her husband has put capital punishment in the headlines again. Many critics of the death penalty argue that it is unconstitutional because it violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments. What should be made of these arguments? What is the definition of "cruel and unusual" and does the death penalty fall under that definition?
You correctly note that the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids punishments that are "cruel and unusual." Various legal interpretations of the meaning of "cruel and unusual" have been offered, but generally the term "cruel" is taken to mean excessively painful or brutal. Punishments such as torture and dismemberment seem to clearly fall under this heading. "Unusual" has generally been understood to mean a punishment that is not usually associated with a particular crime but which is nonetheless applied arbitrarily in some cases. If nine of every ten jaywalkers were cited and fined $5 while the remaining one out of ten were fined $5,000, such a penalty would be "unusual." Furthermore, both terms taken together suggest that punishments should be proportionate to the crime that was committed. Life imprisonment for shoplifting would be "cruel and unusual" not because it is an unacceptable form of punishment under any imaginable set of circumstances, but because it is excessive given the crime in question.
The Supreme Court has addressed the question of whether the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment several times. In doing so, it has generally considered all three of the definitions of "cruel and unusual" noted above. The Court has never ruled the 8th Amendment completely rules out the use of the death penalty. That is not to say, however, that the Court might never rule in such a manner. In its decisions, the Court has explicitly stated that the meaning of the 8th Amendment can and does evolve over time as society's norms and values change. In the late 1700s, for example, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, whippings were commonly recognized as acceptable punishments for particular crimes. Such practices are no longer considered appropriate because society's views of "cruel and unusual" have changed. With regard to the death penalty, however, the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes.
While the Supreme Court has maintained that the death penalty is not excessively "cruel" in and of itself, it has ruled that if its application is "unusual" it violates the 8th Amendment. The two most important decisions about the application of the death penalty came in 1972 and 1976, both in response to challenges of Georgia death penalty statutes. In the 1972 case, Furman v. Georgia, the Court concluded that the arbitrary application of the death penalty and the disproportionate number of minorities that were executed made the death penalty "unusual." In response to this decision, the death sentences of about 600 death row inmates were commuted to life and no executions were allowed in the United States four about four years. By declining to rule that capital punishment was unconstitutional in and of itself, however, the Court left the door open for state legislatures to draw more narrowly construed death penalty statutes that would satisfy the Court's misgivings.
In 1976, Georgia's newly written death penalty statute was challenged before the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia. The Court ruled that Georgia had successfully responded to the Court's concerns in creating a statute that applied the death penalty in response to specific, carefully defined crimes, allowed for the consideration of the particular circumstances of the crime and allowed for expedited appeals in cases where the accused was sentenced to die. In a series of cases since the Gregg decision, the Court has consistently required the federal and state governments to apply the death penalty consistently and fairly and then only in proportion to the crimes committed. The Court has, for example, found that the death penalty is too severe a punishment for the rape of an adult when the victim is not killed. Just what kinds of actions merit the death penalty (other than the direct commission of a murder), however, remains somewhat unclear.
In ruling that the death penalty is not a "cruel and unusual" punishment under the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court has cited the 5th Amendment which the Court believes strongly implies that the Framers did not intend to prevent the use of capital punishment. The 5th Amendment guarantees that no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The clear implication is that depriving someone of his or her life is permissible under the Constitution.
In spite of the Supreme Court's rulings, the death penalty remains a controversial issue. Critics maintain that evil should not be returned with state-sanctioned evil. Others argue that we can never be 100% confident in the accuracy of trial verdicts and that persons should not be put to death even if their is the slightest chance they may be innocent. Supporters of the death penalty, however, assert that there are some crimes which are such an affront to human decency and to the norms of society that an individual who commits them surrenders his or her right to live. In this nation's ongoing effort to strike the appropriate balance between liberty and order, the death penalty forces each of us to consider fundamental questions about nature of political society, the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the extent of governmental power."

Source: http://www.thisnation.com/question/018.html

This article clearly sets out why the Surpreme Court still allows capital punishment. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the death sentence will be forbidden in the future. This is a controversial issue in this country and all over the world and I hope, the US as one of the last countries abolishes the death sentence in the near future.



The spot clearly lines out, why I am against capital punishment. You can never be sure that you have the right suspect even if all evodences point to him/her. There is clearly a chance to be wrong and this is a punishment that cannot be taken back. In Germany there is a system for murderers and dangerous convicts that sets out right at the conviction that this person will never be let free. Lifelong sentence in Germany is at least 15 years and if the convict is considered a danger to society by court he/she will go into another security system where he/she stays in at least for another 5 years and will only be set free, if psychologists say, the person does not put any danger to society anymore.

7th Amendment

"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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

This amendment relieves the jury as they do not have to take any court cases under a certain amount of money. It also protects the people of any retrial id they have already been tried for the crime and gives the the right for a jury trial also in common law cases.

"A primer on the 7th Amendment  
Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Anna Buck
The Constitution protects citizens from the powerful.  The right to a jury trial in the criminal and civil court systems is fundamental to that protection.
Not long before the Revolutionary War, John Adams, the Boston lawyer who would become the nation’s second president, wrote, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”
John Adams was not alone in his belief.
Thomas Jefferson, then a Virginia lawyer who would succeed Adams as president, wrote to Thomas Paine in 1789, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
James Madison, the father of the Constitution and the nation’s fourth president, anchored the Bill of Rights around the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, which give citizens the right to a jury trial in criminal cases and in civil cases.
The Seventh Amendment says: “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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
By ensuring the right to a jury, the nation’s founders sought to protect the individual from the hold that the wealthy and privileged have on society.
In his 1833 treatise on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story called the Seventh Amendment “a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty.”
Pennsylvanian Anti-Federalist author, and later judge,  Samuel Bryan argued in the Letters of Centinel in 1787 that judges are predisposed toward “a bias towards those of their own rank and dignity; for it is not to be expected, that the few should be attentive to the rights of the many.
“This [the civil jury trial] therefore preserves in the hands of the people, that share which they ought to have in the administration of justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens.”
More recently, in a 1975 Supreme Court case striking down a state law excluding women from jury service, Justice Byron White wrote: “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power–to make available the common sense judgment of the community . . . in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge.”  Taylor v. Louisianna, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975).
The jury system ensures that parties standing trial are granted a fair hearing. Jurors are chosen from a random pool of citizens, and are solely accountable to the consciences. Jury duty is part of the defense envisioned by the founders against tyranny.
Alexis de Tocqueville put it in these words: “[Jury service] rubs off that private selfishness which is the rust of society.”
For more information, please see Charles W. Wolfram, The Constitutional History of the Seventh Amendment, 57 Minn. L. Rev. 639, 695-96 (1973)."

Source: http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/a-primmer-on-the-7th-amendment.html

This article defines and explaines in detail what the seventh amendment mean to the people. The right to a jury trial is very important as they themselves have to serve their jury duty within their lifetime and understand the justice system in this country and the consequenses of their and others behavior.



The case of this woman is just unbelievable. The doctor has ruined her face and she cannot even receive her right amount of compensation given by the jury trial as there is a cap on compensation. This is a scandal and should be changed. People who have been mirtreated have to have the chance to a fair compensation for the damage they have suffered and in this case, it is so obvious as the scars are in the face of the woman.