Bill of Rights and Intention on Limiting the National Government Powers - Assignment Example

Political science Introduction Question one: bill of rights and intention on limiting the national government powers The bill of rights entails the first ten amendments of the US constitution and provides limitations that protect the natural rights, property and liberty of the citizens. Thesis statement: The framers of the US constitution intended the first ten amendments to limit the powers of both federal government and states governments. Some early Supreme Court cases may support the view that the bill of rights intended to limit the power of the federal government only, this is not absolute prove of the intentions of the framers and those who ratified the constitution and the bill of rights. The Supreme Court is a political institution like the other branches of the government such as the executive thus cannot be relied upon to make decisions on the original intention of the bill of rights. Supreme Court decisions and interpretation of the constitution is not always wrong, but the political influences experienced results to an opinion that reflects the current political tide (Garry 30). There is no explicit wording in the constitution or bill of rights that applies on to the federal government. The Constitution applies universally to all citizens and institutions in the whole nation and so do the bill of rights. The constitution and the bill of rights are thus inseparable and apply universally to the federal government, state or local authority governments. Article VI, Section 2 of the constitution is clear on the intention of those who framed the constitution since it states that ‘the constitution shall be Supreme law of land, and judges in every state shall be bound by the constitution’. Since the constitution framers implied that the judges in every state must obey the laws regardless of any contradictory state laws, it is clear that the intention was to limit the powers of both levels of government and protect the rights of all citizens in the country (Garry 67). From the ten amendments, it is only the first amendment that states that ‘Congress shall make not law’, but none of the other articles Congress shall not make such laws. It is clear from the other nine amendments that this are constitutional general statements that protect the rights of all citizens against excessive powers of federal, local and state governments. The first amendment was worded differently due to the prevailing political units and inhabitants in every state since most states were bound by religion and origin (Garry 123). The bill of rights does not intend to restrict government powers since historically there was no federal militia but state militia. The 2nd amendment states clearly that ‘a well regulated militia is necessary for free states’ referring to the state entities with armed and peaceful militia. Question two: fourth and fifth amendment on electronic surveillance The fourth amendment protects the citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures without any probable cause. Thesis statement: The fourth and fifth amendments did not contemplate electronic surveillance. Technological innovations have led to gaps and uncertainty in the interpretation of the fourth and fifth amendments. The framers of the constitution did not consider the possibility of digital communications thus law enforcement officers have wiretapped during investigations thus leading to numerous new legislations on electronic communications (Garry 221). In the case of United States v. Olmstead, the court pointed out that the Fourth Amendment protected against searches and seizure of material possessions such as homes and effects. Since they may be no evidence of electronic surveillance, there is no evidence of unreasonable seizure or search. The original wording of the right to privacy from illegal seizures did not contemplate electronic surveillance (Garry 223). The Congress has passed numerous laws to regulate electronic surveillance. Some of the Acts include Electronic communications privacy Act, communications assistance for law enforcement Act of 2006, foreign intelligence surveillance and USA PATRIOT ACT that has modified the laws on electronic surveillance. Katz v. United States decision ruled that the fourth amendment was supposed to protect citizens and not places. The Fifth Amendment also provides that illegally obtained information is not admissible in court, thus both amendments have contemplated electronic surveillance (Garry 78). In the case of U.S v. White 401 US 745, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that wired agents and informers did not violate the right of privacy under the fourth amendment since the suspect did not have a reason to expect privacy. The fourth amendment grants exemption to government officials who execute Title III eavesdropping order during emergency situations before the issuance of a court order. In the case of City of Ontario v. Quon (08- 1332), the Supreme Court ruled that the suspects do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in text messages received on a public–employer owned pager (Garry 234). Question three: right to counsel The sixth Amendment provides the right to trial to ensure that federal and state criminal suspects obtain a fair trial. Thesis statement: The right to counsel is guaranteed in both federal and state criminal prosecutions. The sixth Amendment is clear that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel”. The right to counsel has been extended by the Supreme Court to include pretrial police interrogations, consent searches and plea negotiations. Historically, the right to counsel applied only on federal criminal prosecutions for felonies such as murder. The right was later extended to include state criminal prosecutions for felonies by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S 335. The Appeal Court reversed the earlier conviction of Gideon by arguing that right to counsel if essential for any fair trial that extending the right to state prosecutions. An indigent defendant has the right of a counsel during pre-indictment identification lineups that are conducted by the law enforcement officers (Acker and Brody 90). The sixth amendment also provides the juveniles the right to a counsel when their liberty is involved in the case proceedings. The sixth amendment provides the defendant to meaningful representation. In the case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S, 668, the court ruling can be reversed if the defendant can prove the attorney’s dismal sub-standard performance changed the outcome of the trial. An indigent defendant in criminal cases has no right to counsel in the proceedings after the conviction. The case of Gapnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S 778 is clear that an indigent defender has not absolute right to a counsel for the probation hearing or revocation of Parole. However, the court can at its discretion appoint an attorney for the defendant if there are mitigating circumstances that can limit the guilt of the defendant (Acker and Brody 45). The defendant has no constitutional right to a counsel for a Habeas Corpus petition unless the defendant faces the punishment of death. In the case of Brewer v, Williams, 430 U.S 387 (1976), the court ruled that defendants gain the right of a counsel at or after when criminal prosecutions have been initiated whether by a way of formal charge, preliminary hearings, information, indictment by grand jury or arraignment in court. The right to counsel attaches after indictment by a grand jury or after the prosecutor signifies the commitment to continue with the judicial prosecutions after a complaint is filled against the suspect. However, the Supreme Court decisions have extended the right of counsel to include Miranda right during the custodial police interrogations. The criminal suspects have the right of counsel during police initiated questioning. However, some analysts have argued that the purpose of Miranda rights is to safeguard the suspect from self-incrimination and not a right to a counsel (Acker and Brody 78). Works cited: Acker, James and Brody, David. Criminal procedure: a contemporary perspective. Burlington. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2012. Garry, Patrick. Limited government and the bill of rights. London. University of Missouri Press. 2012. Read More