Criminal procedure 1 - Assignment Example

1. The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it was passed by and ratified by the executive branch of government. Being put into place by Congress and the president, that made the law an legislative move rather than a judicial one. Since the country was deeply rooted in certain traditions such as racial segregation and sexual discrimination, the Bill of Rights were not really important legally speaking, which is why the supreme court did not need to issue a decision regarding it. It was not until the 20th century when these rights were used to challenge certain aspects of life, such as the abolition of segregation and definition of sexual harassment, which was brought before the supreme court for a final, legal decision.

Since the courts cannot issue a legal opinion until it is officially requested, it is understandable why they did not implement the Bill of Rights until the 1960s, when it officially came into play for political and judicial changes ( “The Bill of Rights: A Brief History”).Source: American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). The bill of rights: A brief history. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants- rights/bill-rights-brief-history 2. In Dred Scott v.

Sanford, the issue of American citizenship came into question for African- Americans. The issue was that African-Americans, whether in slavery or free were not to be considered American citizens and therefore, had not right to sue in the federal courts and that the federal government had no right to regulate slavery. The suit was brought forth by Dred Scott whose owners had brought him across territories where he was considered a free man in some states and tried to sue in order to gain his freedom.

The supreme court protected the rights of the slave owners, deciding that Scott did not have the right to sue for his freedom. This landmark case is remembered for being only the second time that the courts did not uphold an Act of Congress. 3. The 14th amendement guaranteed citizenship to the United States for any person who was born or naturalized in the United States. Had this law been passed prior to Dredd v. Scott, Dredd would have seen his citizenship as an American recognized by the courts, which would then have ensure his rights as an American citizen, quite possibly gaining him his freedom in the process.

It is important to remember that the courts can only act upon legal issues regarding constitutional matters once it is brought to their attention. The Dredd v. Scott case no doubt influenced a larger inquiry into the definition of American citizenship and who shall be granted equal access and rights as a citizen. The case set the precedent for slave-owners to continue owning their slaves, regardless of the state that they lived in, which then became the catalyst of the civil war. 4. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment did not fairly treat the African-Aemricans and the Native Americans in the sense that the citizenship of the African - Americans became immediately guaranteed as natural born citizens of the country.

while the Native Americans, though born in the United States, were not considered to be American citizens, even if they voluntarily joined the American society. They needed to apply for citizenship in order to become Americans. The Due Process Clause applies to the individual states in a manner similar to that of the 5th amendment. However, it applies both the federal and state rights in all instances concerning due process. The Equal Protection Clause was meant to create a semblance of fair punishment between black and white criminals.

This was created in response to the Black Code which prevented the African - Americans from presenting evidence in court to support their innocence. 5. It is my opinion that the United States, at the time that the Bill of Rights was passed, fully intended to use the law as the basis of citizenship creation. That is because the country itself was a mere infant at the time, having just been cut from British rule, and as such, was still in the process of creating its governing rules and regulations.

As such, they would have needed to find a way to identify who were Americans and who were British in the country. The Bill of Rights made that task much simpler by defining the governing rules for citizenship, and other important legal matters for the people. That is the interpretation that I would have given the Bill of Rights as a Supreme Court justice in the 1800s.