The Constitution: Protecting The People And Their Rights

The US Constitution, which came into effect in 1789, has been amended 27 times since its inception. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, protect individual liberties and justice and restrict the powers of the government. The majority of the 17 later amendments expand on these rights, while others address federal authority and government processes. The Constitution was influenced by the European Enlightenment thinkers, such as Montesquieu and John Locke, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Constitution has also been interpreted and implemented by a large body of federal constitutional law.

Explore related products

U.S. Constitution: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$6.46

The Constitution of the United States

$1.5

No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States

$18.99 $19.99

The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution

$16.69 $17.95

The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (The Simon & Schuster America Collection)

$11.29 $19.99

The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union

$18.4 $45

The right to privacy in marital relations

The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the American people, and while it does not explicitly mention a "right to privacy", this right has been asserted by the Supreme Court in the context of marital relations.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states that the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights does not mean that other rights are not in effect. This has been interpreted to include a right to privacy, which is essential to our autonomy and self-growth. In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court struck down a state law banning contraceptives, citing the Ninth Amendment and collectively asserting the people's right to privacy in marital relations. The Court noted that the Constitution protects rights not specifically guaranteed in the document, including the right to privacy.

The marital-privacy doctrine, also known as the doctrine of marital privacy, is a principle that limits the government's involvement in the private affairs of married couples. This doctrine was first recognized in the Griswold v. Connecticut case and is based on the idea that the government should not interfere in private family matters, such as the intimate relationship between married people. While this doctrine once prevented the government from intervening in cases of domestic violence, the increasing emphasis on individual privacy rights has led to a shift in this interpretation. Today, the marital-privacy doctrine does not discourage government protection from domestic violence, and the government may intervene in private family matters if there is a compelling reason to do so.

Despite the protections afforded by the marital-privacy doctrine, contemporary conceptions of marital intimacy often view privacy as an affront to spousal cohesion. This notion of privacy within marriage can be challenging to reconcile with the idea of a "'shackling oneness' that is sometimes associated with matrimony. Additionally, the urge to divulge or confess extramarital affairs or details of a spouse's sexual activities in an open relationship can be influenced by a Judeo-Christian morality that views sex as inherently suspect and in need of constant surveillance and control. However, it is important to recognize that each individual has a right to privacy within matrimony, including the right to act in their own sexual and romantic self-interests independent of their partner's knowledge or consent.

In conclusion, the right to privacy in marital relations is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's protections. The Ninth Amendment and the marital-privacy doctrine work together to ensure that the government does not interfere in the private affairs of married couples unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This right to privacy is essential to autonomy and self-growth and should be respected in modern marital relationships, even as technological innovations make it easier to electronically snoop on spouses.

The right to a speedy and public trial

The Sixth Amendment states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." This right to a speedy trial is designed to protect the accused from oppressive pretrial incarceration, minimize anxiety and concern, and limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired due to delay.

The determination of whether an individual has been denied their right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment involves considering several factors. These factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the accused demanded a speedy trial, and any prejudice caused by the delay. The prejudice factor is assessed in light of the three interests of the accused that the speedy trial right was designed to protect.

It is worth noting that the right to a speedy trial can be waived in certain circumstances, such as when a defendant enters a voluntary guilty plea. However, this waiver is not explicitly addressed in the text of the Sixth Amendment and has been determined through court interpretations. Overall, the right to a speedy and public trial is a crucial protection for criminal defendants, ensuring that they are treated fairly and justly within the legal system.

The right to be informed of criminal charges

The US Constitution was written to protect the rights of Americans, and while the original document mentioned very few specific rights, the Bill of Rights was soon added to outline these in detail. The Sixth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know the nature of the charges and evidence against them.

The Sixth Amendment ensures that the accused receives a fair trial. This includes the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so that the defendant can defend themselves against specific charges, and the court can determine if there is enough evidence to convict them. The amendment also protects against self-incrimination and ensures the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury.

In another case, United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court struck down a 16-count indictment against people accused of violating the 1870 Civil Rights Act, a law designed to protect recently freed African Americans. The Court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to "be informed" serves two purposes: firstly, enabling the defendant to defend themselves, and secondly, ensuring the court has sufficient evidence to convict.

The Sixth Amendment also played a role in the case of Cole v. Arkansas, where the Supreme Court reversed a state court conviction of four defendants for violating an Arkansas law. The state appeals court had decided that the defendants deserved to be convicted under a different provision, Section 1, even though they had not been charged with violating it. The justices ruled that this violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to know all the charges against them, allowing them to present a complete defence.

Explore related products

Witsec: Inside the Federal Witness Protection Program

$7.99 $8.99

The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth

$27.99 $25.19

How to Read the Constitution--and Why (Legal Expert Series)

$14.36 $19.99

A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic

$32 $31.99

A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before

$13.77 $22.95

Beyond the Constitution

$49.95 $53

The right to keep and bear arms

The US Constitution was written to protect the rights of American citizens. One of these rights, as outlined in the Second Amendment, is the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, as one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment 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." This amendment solidifies the individual right of American citizens to arm themselves, unconnected with service in a militia. The Founding Fathers intended to grant citizens the ability to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom from oppression by the government or any other entity.

The notion of average citizens possessing their own weapons predates the Constitution. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed Protestant English citizens to "have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This right was further asserted in legal documents during the colonial and revolutionary periods, such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Constitution was a result of a compromise between Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Anti-Federalists were concerned about the shift of military authority from the states to the federal government, fearing that it could lead to the usurpation of individual rights. Federalists dismissed these concerns, clarifying that the federal government's power to maintain a standing army and navy would not affect the functioning of militias. The significant advantage in numbers of armed citizens compared to the military also eased Anti-Federalists' worries.

The Second Amendment has been the subject of ongoing debate and interpretation, with Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the amendment's purpose has evolved over time, shifting from primarily guarding against foreign invasion and federal overreach to focusing on the general safety and protection of life, liberty, and property.

The right to liberty

In the context of the United States Constitution, the right to liberty is implicitly protected through various amendments and legal principles. For example, the Fifth Amendment safeguards individuals against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and the seizure of property without due process. Similarly, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, and legal representation. These protections collectively reinforce the notion that individuals have the right to liberty and due process under the law.

The absence of an explicit bill of rights in the original US Constitution generated significant controversy during its ratification. Many delegates felt that state constitutions already protected individual rights, while others insisted on a more explicit guarantee. This led to the addition of the Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which further solidified the right to liberty.

The Ninth Amendment, for instance, acknowledges that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution does not negate the existence of other rights. This amendment has been invoked to protect the right to privacy in marital relations and to uphold rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, reinforcing the idea that individual liberties extend beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

In practice, the right to liberty encompasses various protections for individuals who are arrested or detained. This includes the right to be informed of the reasons for their detention, the right to a prompt trial, and the right to humane treatment. These safeguards help prevent arbitrary or unjust deprivation of liberty and ensure that individuals' rights are respected even when they are subject to legal or governmental constraints.

While the right to liberty is widely recognised, its interpretation and application can vary across jurisdictions. For example, in the United Kingdom, there is no time limit on how long someone can be held in immigration detention, which has raised concerns about potential breaches of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to liberty and security. Nonetheless, the recognition of the right to liberty in various legal frameworks underscores its importance as a fundamental human right.

Frequently asked questions