U.S. Constitution: Supreme Law of U.S.A, Protecting Fundamental Rights - Essay Sample

Introduction

U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Empowered by the framers and the consent of the state legislatures with the sovereign power of the citizens, it is the basis of all state power, and it provides significant limitations on the authorities that protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of the United States. Amendments are made by either congress or a constitutional convention under certain circumstances. The Constitution of the United States is a document establishing the basic structure and operations of the government of nations. Constitutional amendments are legislation applied to the Constitution from the time it was ratified. The first ten amendments to the draft constitution were added to protect American citizens from possible abuse of state power (Albert, 2017). Here are the 4th to 6th amendments.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Fourth Amendment

Unreasonable Search & Seizure

The fourth amendment of the American Constitution is an assurance of individuals' protection. It communicates that the advantage of the individuals to be secure in their kinfolk, houses, papers, and impacts, against over the top undertakings and seizures, will not be excused, and no Warrants will issue, at any rate upon reasonable legitimization. Bolstered by Oath or demand, and especially portraying the spot to be looked, and the people or things to be confiscated (McInnis, 2010). This revision expresses that residents must be examined with a warrant gave by an adjudicator under a reasonable justification. A search and seize, which is unfair, is illegal because it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Additionally, evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be presented in court. This evidence is called poisonous tree fruit. The Supreme Court ruled in Mapp v. Ohio, 347 U.S. 643 (1961) that exclusionary law refers to facts obtained from arbitrary search and seize (Carson & Bull, 2003).

In Mapp v. Ohio case, police had forced entry into Mapp's residence without possession of a search warrant. They were searching the apartment on suspicion of the residence harboring a suspect in a recent bombing incident. The police were looking for any illegal materials that would have been used to make a bomb. On request for a warrant, the police produced a fake document. The search for illicit substances that would have been used to make explosives was unfruitful. The police did anyway discover foul material in a trunk in the cellar. Mapp was attempted and indicted for the ownership of indecent material. Even though the proof had been gotten in an infringement of the fourth amendment, the court of offer held the conviction. The Ohio court argued that the prosecution of a state crime in a state court the change did not prohibit the presentation of evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure. However, the court held that the conviction was reversible if the evidence had been seized in an offensive manner (V. et al., 2010). The court decided that the police had not used brutal or aggressive force to obtain the incriminating evidence.

The 4th amendment has gone through numerous interpretations as search and seizure is redefined every day with new ways to obtain evidence. Evidence searching such as urine tests and DNA without are a warrant is inadmissible by the 4th amendment. A person's DNA can give a lot of information about them and is considered an invasion of privacy (McInnis, 2010). For any collection of evidence, there has to be a warrant issued by a judge.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment gives that without fair treatment, the residents are not dependent upon criminal arraignment and discipline. Residents may not be attempted more than once in a similar situation, and are ensured against self-implication. The option to stay quiet implies that a suspect has the privilege to keep silent under addressing. The amendment further recognizes the right of executive action, meaning that private land is not taken without merely paying for public use. Although the Fifth Amendment was initially referred exclusively to civil tribunals, the U.S. The Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment of the governments in part by the Fourteenth Amendment's Fair Process Provision. The Grand Jury's privilege to prosecution has not been implemented. However, the opportunity of double jeopardy, the right of self-incrimination, and the right of unlawful confiscation of private property without fair reimbursement have also been integrated into the Jurisdictions (Hazlett, 1998).

Due Process

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In light of evaluated firearm trouble in a private home, Houston Police entered the structure of offended party Lawrence. They saw him and another individual, candidate Garner, participate in a private, consenting grown-up consensual intercourse. Solicitors were attempted and charged with going amiss sex infringing upon a Texas rule, which denies two individuals of similar sex from taking part in certain warm sexual conduct. The State Court of Appeals, in its sanction governed bury alia, that the law was sacred under the Fifth Amendment's fair treatment provision. The court decided that Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, to mind that point (Kemp and Skelton, 2017). The rule that makes it unlawful for two consenting grown-ups to take part in sexual closeness disregards the established right to the Due Process statement. The Due process clause under the 5th amendment protects the rights of all citizens. It ensures that the law if fair to suspects that the ruling meted out is done justly.

Furthermore, the self-incrimination clause protects suspects from exposing themselves to an accusation. If someone does not want to implicate himself or herself even when questioned, they have the right to plead the fifth. Double jeopardy clause is another clause that protects an individual from being prosecuted for the same crime twice (Brezina, 2011). These clauses were drafted to ensure even suspects are treated humanely and maintain their rights as American citizens.

Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to due process by a jury of one's peers, to be briefed of the offenses they are accused of, and to address the state's witnesses. The amendment also gives the accused the power to compel witness statements and legal counsel. Due process is the legal obligation that the government should adhere to protecting every person’s constitutional rights. Due process regulates the land's force of legislation and defends the human citizen against it. If a government endangers a person without following the precise course of the law, this constitutes an infringement of due process, which offends the rule of law (Brezina, 2011). The state holds the most significant power within the nation. This amendment mitigates any exploitation the government may take on citizens.

Right to Counsel

The right to representation applies to a convicted defendant's ability to have a prosecutor help with his case, even if he cannot afford to compensate for an attorney. The Sixth Amendment grants the right of counsel to defendants in federal prosecutions. However, in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, the right of representation was not extended to criminal convictions for violent crimes until 1963. That was achieved by employing the theory of integration. There is, however, no guaranteed right to counsel for certain misdemeanors (Backus & Marcus, 2005). The Supreme Court, however, held that the right to representation means the right to an efficient lawyer. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), courts must follow the standard developed by the Supreme Court to assess if a court-appointed solicitor is provided successful representation.

The right to counsel is dependent on the other clauses under the sixth amendment. First, the defendant has the right to a public trial in good time. The jury should also be fair and impartial. Furthermore, the accused has a right to the compulsory clause, which allows them to secure a witness in their favor. There is also the right to confront witnesses or confront the provision that allows a defendant to cross-examine witnesses to prove his innocence (Craft, 2019). These clauses are designed to uphold the rule of ‘innocent until proven guilty.' A plaintiff has the right to plead their case.

References

Albert, R. (2017). The Expressive Function of Constitutional Amendment Rules. Direito Público. https://doi.org/10.11117/22361766.73.13.2873

Backus, M. S., & Marcus, P. (2005). The Right to Counsel in Criminal Cases, A National Crisis. Hastings lj, 57, 1031. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=facpubs

Brezina, C. (2011). The Fifth Amendment: double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and due process of law. Rosen Central. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Fifth_Amendment/D60dm04MnbUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=5th+amendment&printsec=frontcover

Carson, D., & Bull, R. (2003). Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013397Craft, P. (2019, February 19). The Right of Defendants to Confront Witnesses. Law Office of Perry A. Craft PLLC. https://www.craftlegal.com/2018/08/16/the-right-of-defendants-to-confront-witnesses/

Hazlett, K. B. (1998). The Nineteenth-Century Origins of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. The American Journal of Legal History, 42(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.2307/846176

Kemp, D., & Skelton, C. (2017). Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/

McInnis, T. N. (2010). The evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lexington Books. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-_QVsS_MKGoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=the+4th+amendment&ots=2urkn4Ay9V&sig=hCzo7XotJn_IsmrAu6SOnBJo5c4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%204th%20amendment&f=false

V., D. C. R., Hemmens, C., & Bell, V. (2010). Criminal procedure and the Supreme Court: a guide to the major decisions on search and seizure, privacy, and individual rights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/LzrlcPVUX2EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA39&dq=Mapp+v.+Ohio,+347+U.S.+643+(1961)