The First Amendment
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.” This Amendment basically protects free speech, among other rights—but in recent years it has been necessary to define the parameters of free speech, particularly when it comes to politics. One of the more recent cases of this is with respect to the creation of the Super Political Action Committee (PAC). In the news article by Samuelson (2012) it is shown how the Supreme Court is muddling the Constitution by allowing the formation of Super PACs, which rather than serving as an affirmation of First Amendment rights are actually more of a stifling of those rights—yet the Courts do not see it that way.

The Super PAC came about thanks to the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court ruling—this ruling allowed corruption to lead into the political system by giving more weight to corporations to influence elections. The Citizens United case centered on the non-profit Citizens United, which sought to air a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was running for president during the 2008 Democratic primary elections. The Federal Election Committee ruled that this would be a violation of federal law, which stipulated that corporations could not engage in electioneering campaigning within a month of a primary election or two months of a general election. Citizens United sued and the Supreme Court sided with the non-profit saying that to prevent the corporation from doing so was a violation of First Amendment Rights. The First Amendment is a crucial right, but this case shows how it can be twisted and used for political purposes.

The Second Amendment

In the U.S., people have a Constitutional right to bear arms. This right is protected by the Second Amendment, which states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While the justification for the Second Amendment may seem outdated to some, it is honored and celebrated by others who believe that part of what makes America unique among other countries in the world is that its citizens have never been denied the right to bear arms. Indeed, among all modern nations, the U.S. stands out for its gun laws for a number of reasons: people want to feel safe and they know they have the right to carry and bear arms according to the Constitution; in other countries, like the UK, it is illegal to own a gun. Thus, America is unique.

Following the Parkland school shooting, many called for the 2nd Amendment to be abolished. In his news article, Hsieh (2018) states the opposite: “Millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns.” The gist of Hsieh’s article is that guns can be used for good purposes and not every gun owner is a villain. This article is valuable for putting the context of the Second Amendment in the right light. Americans have the right to bear arms—and that right is important to people and they do not feel it is outdated. If anything they feel it is more important now than ever because no one feels safe anymore.

The Fourth Amendment

With the rise of the Digital Age, this question of searching and seizing the personal property of people has been questioned in a number of court cases, especially those involving wiretapping, confiscating hard drives, or surveillance via FISA courts. Though these activities are conducted in order to obtain evidence so that the target might then be aptly accused of a crime, the Fourth Amendment is clear about persons being accused, first, and then detained or searched—not the other way around. Over time, this concept has been inverted and the necessity to prevent crime for going undetected or from letting criminals escape without being caught has allowed this inversion to take place. This is the case today with the RussiaGate issue that has plagued the Trump presidency. The Trump Administration says that the Obama Administration had no legal standing to authorize wiretaps on Trump Tower and that the Courts had no legal standing to allow for this either as the intelligence used to justify the invasion of privacy was based on a bogus narrative that the intelligence community knew to be bogus. This is all reported in the news story by Investors Business Daily (2018), which discusses the illegality of the wiretapping and the scandal that it has caused for the American public over the past two years.

The Fourth Amendment was meant to protect citizens from undue searches and seizures and was an important addition to the Constitution, because those who are detained, searched, and have their property seized are essentially being accused of some criminal act and are thus treated by the state. However, there is a protocol that must be in place in order for police or the state to act in this manner. They cannot simply stop whomever they wish or conduct searches in a meaningless manner, as Constitutional law forbids it.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment directly addresses and identifies the rights of the accused by stating that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the...…census or enumeration.” Today, however, more than half the population wants to end this Amendment. It is possibly the most hated Amendment of all time. As the article by Rasmussen (2019) shows, “today, 52% of voters favor repealing the 16th Amendment to end the federal income tax. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that such a repeal is favored by 62% of independent voters, 56% of Republicans, and 42% of Democrats.” However, Rasmussen (2019) shows that while the majority of Americans are in favor of repealing this Amendment, the likelihood of that happening is virtually zero, as it is exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution. Likewise, the federal government is not going to vote to eliminate its main source of funding each year, according to the article.

So this is an Amendment that the Founding Fathers surely did not anticipate. That it was passed the same year the Federal Reserve was established should indicate something about what was going on in the country and who the nation’s leaders were at the time. The 16th Amendment was passed so as to allow the federal government to get even bigger and more bureaucratic, which it could not do without regularly income streams, which the income tax allowed it to do.

The 18th Amendment

If there was one Amendment more hated than the 16th Amendment, it was the 18th Amendment. It legally banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the whole United States. No one could legally purchase a drink anymore—which turned country into a nation of scofflaws during the 1920s, also known as the Lawless Decade, as everyone had to go underground to get their booze. They huddled in speakeasies and flouted the law—because no one really wanted to stop drinking. Carrie Nation and the teetotalers managed to get this Amendment passed, and it would eventually be repealed by the 21st Amendment—but not before the rise of the criminal underworld thanks to all the bootlegging and profits that that 18th Amendment allowed them to accrue. The criminal class basically came into existence in a big way because of this ill-thought out Amendment.

The news article by DeFelitta (2019) focuses more on the repeal of the 18th Amendment rather than on the good things that it brought about during the more than a decade of its existence. For that reason, the title of the article is “Cheers to the 21st Amendment,” and the article was published on National Beer Day to get the point across that the 18th Amendment will go down in history as the worst Amendment to the Constitution ever imaginable. The article discusses how it was finally repealed and why this was a good thing.

The 18th Amendment will probably never be revived as it was passed at a time when the nation was trying to “sober” up and get back to a moral footing. That ship has since passed. Now the people are demanding that marijuana be legalized across the board. What a difference a century makes.

References

Blockburger v. United States. (1932). Retrieved…