Citizen 's Rights In regards to human rights, the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are often thought as being violated when civil-asset forfeiture takes place (Worrall, n.p.). The fact that owners of seized property have few means to challenge said in cases in a court of law and are considered guilty until proven innocent only make retrieval of the property that much more difficult. Because asset forfeiture is part of the Civil Justice System, there are no provided attorneys for defendants as their are in most criminal trials. This forces victims who cannot afford an attorney to have slim chances of recovering their property or having their case thrown out altogether because of the absence of a lawyer. The Eighth Amendment is also put to the test in regard to civil-asset forfeiture. A portion of the amendment states that no excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. During a 1996 trial, Justice John Paul Stevens rules it just that a house, in which marijuana has been illegally processed, be seized in accordance with the drug crime. The defendant claimed that the Eighth Amendment was being violated, because of the excessive punishment implemented but the majority of the court did not rule in his favor (Greenhouse, n.p.). Although the defendant was found guilty in this instance, the trial displayed how civil-asset forfeiture can lead to the seemingly extensive confiscation of valuable personal possessions.
Current
The originally Bill of Rights protected the rights of citizens from infringement by the federal government, but made no mention of the states. The Fourteen Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, protected citizenship and individual rights from infringement by state governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the United States Supreme Court began to apply the most important rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights against the states. This process began in the early 1900s and is known as the doctrine of selective incorporation. Duncan versus Louisiana was the landmark case in which the court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial against the states.
Citizens are protected by two constitutional amendments, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises (including a vehicle), and any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable.
Due process is when all criminal suspects are guaranteed that they will have the ability to question the evidence against them in an open format. This is where they are entitled to the same protections and procedures as everyone else during a criminal proceeding. As a result, anything that is denying them of these safeguards is violation of their basic rights. (Sundahl, 2011)
This Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified by the states December 15, 1789. It is a part of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution.
The bill of rights is a popular document that was not originally in the US constitution, but anti federalists wanted a bill of rights really bad because supposedly they were afraid of a strong central government. They did not want another king so some states refused the constitution until there was a bill of rights. Along with being afraid of a central government they wanted a limited government so that government could not control them. The anti federalists also thought the government would not protect their individual rights enough so they wanted a bill of rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and the amendment was put in place to protect former slaves and their rights in life. The most important part of the amendment reads, “No state shall ‘deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person… the equal protection of the laws.’” This simple statement has one of the most profound and incredible parts of the United States today. The equal protection of the laws show that there must be equal treatment for all citizens regardless of race, class, or gender. Although there has been many racial events happening after this amendment was passed this clause still stands to today and has helped shape the United States for the better. Having this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the ‘little guy’ and makes sure that everyone has the same ability to do whatever everyone else is doing.
Military people can go to trial without the grand jury decision, it is a case when military person commits a crime during a war or a national emergency.
The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments from the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison on December 15, 1791. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to address the rights of the individuals that the Constitution did not specified correctly and it also was written to protect the rights of the individuals liberties even if the majority wanted to take them away.
According to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment can be best defined as an amendment providing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth, 2012). In general terms, the Fourth Amendment protects from illegal searches and seizures performed by governmental agents. In 1763, William Pitt stated that under any circumstance or living condition, whether the roof was falling in or the walls allowed wind through, even the King of England was not allowed entrance into ones home (History, 2016).
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) which is followed by the United States Constitution belongs to the part of the Bill of Rights and will protect each and every individual from being compelled to witnesses against themselves in all sorts of criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a sort of informal term used generally for invoking the right which allows the witnesses to decline the chance of answering the questions which may lead the answers that might incriminate them, and basically it wouldn’t provide any criteria to suffer a penalty to propound the right. This sort of evidentiary privilege makes sure that defendants generally the accused cannot be coercing to become the witnesses at their own trials. If, however, by any
In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights
The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and
The original writers of the Constitution had to have noticed the overlap in enumerated powers. Having only the Commerce Clause or only the Tenth Amendment would not harbor the best outcomes. Both are entirely necessary and exist to limit each other. Discretion is the deciding factor for determining which power trumps the other. In McColloch v. Maryland, for example, a state tax on the U.S. Bank would cause negative externalities against all citizens of other states. This is not in the best interest of the majority, or even Maryland in the long haul, to tax the US Bank. The key is to reach the best outcome in terms of majority. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
On January 31st, 1865, the 13th amendment was passed by congress. This amendment said that no one, not even those of differing colors, could be held as slaves (with the exception of prisoners). In short, this amendment freed the black slaves (and other races) of enslavement. Unfortunately though, the black slaves were never truly “free” for well over 100 years, as after the passing of the 13th amendment, they were repeatedly persecuted against, most notably in the southern United States. Furthermore, Mississippi never submitted the required paperwork to ratify the 13th amendment until February 7th, 2013 (Waldron, “Mississippi Officially Abolishes Slavery”, 2013). Fortunately though, slavery would still have been illegal even if Mississippi
An important provision of the Bill of Rights is the protection of freedom to publish, as provided by the First Amendment. This protection applies to all kinds of publications, even those that print unpopular opinions. In most censorship cases, every attempt is made to suppress the written word after publication, not before. Minnesota passed a law in 1925 that sought to prevent newspapers, magazines, and other publications from printing obscene, malicious, scandalous and defamatory material. This law was called the Minnesota Gag Law . This law allowed private citizens and/or public prosecutors to request a court injunction to shut down any publication that was known as a public nuisance. Publishers of newspapers had to show that they had good motives for anything they were going to print before they printed it.