Vicki Tillman

We are reading two impactful Amendments: Amendments XV and XVI.

Amendment XV clarifies the right to vote of all citizens (implied male citizens) no matter what their race, color, or if they had earlier been enslaved. Amendment XVI makes income tax constitutional.

Transcript from National Archives (archives.gov). Explanation after each Amendment is bolded and italicized.

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–“

Section 2.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This Amendment clarified the right to vote for all male citizens. It was necessary because Black males were being subject to voting suppression throughout the former enslaving states, as well as other states.

Note the date this Amendment was ratified: 1870. It is a wonderful Amendment, but it was not enforced until the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Black voters were subject to tests, taxes, and even violence until then. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rolled back many of the safety measures of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Human Rights Watch reports:

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, states and localities have brazenly pushed forward discriminatory changes to voting practices, such as changing district boundaries to disadvantage select voters, instituting more onerous voter identification laws, and changing polling locations with little notice. These laws especially disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, low-income people, transgender people and people with disabilities. Voters are more vulnerable to discrimination now than at any time since the Voting Rights Act was signed into law more than fifty years ago. 

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The first income tax was instituted to help fund the Union effort during the Civil War. It was in force until the end of the War. The need for income tax on people and businesses was a topic of debate until Congress approved Amendment XVI in 1909 but it was not ratified until 1913.

We are looking at two Amendments today: Amendments XIII and XIV. They are two of the most important Amendments to our Constitution. Amendment XIII abolished slavery. Amendment XIV covered birthright citizenship, equal protection under the law, due process, disqualifies from serving in the government any who participate in insurrection, and more.

The transcript is from National Archives (archives.gov). Explanations bolded and italicized.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Section 2.

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Amendment XIII abolished slavery. Unfortunately, it did make provision for slavery or involuntary servitude where a person was duly convicted. This provision set in motion the Jim Crow era in the South, where local sheriffs would round up Black males for no real crime, but rather, because local farmers needed labor. So these men were convicted and sentenced to work in the fields. This is called “peonage”. Even though Congress gave itself the power to enforce the Amendment, little was done to right the situation for decades.

Amendment XIV

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Birthright Citizenship Clause

This Amendment guaranteed that all formerly enslaved persons and anyone who was born or naturalized in the United states is a citizen of the United States (and also of the state where they live).

Privileges and Immunities Clause

No State can make laws against the privileges or immunities of US citizens.

Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause

No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. Also people cannot be deprived of equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

Representatives for Congress are based on the number of persons in each state (except at that time- Native Americans). However, if any person is denied the right to vote in federal elections, the state’s number of representatives will be reduced in proportion to the number of male citizens twenty-one years old and older.

Section 3.

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.“

If a person has participated in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort to an enemy, that person cannot hold an office in the government or military. (However, Congress can issue a forgiveness by two-third’s vote.

Section 4.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.“

The US government will pay its debts, but not the debts of the Confederacy.

Section 5.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.“

Congress gave itself the power to enforce.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENTS XI and XII

Today we will look at two Amendments, Amendments XI and XII. The transcripts are from National Archives (archives.gov).

Explanations are bolded and italicized.

Amendment XI

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution, was modified by Amendment 11. It clarifies that citizens of one state or foreign country cannot sue another state in federal court.

Amendment XII

Passed by Congress on December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804. This amendment was the result of a messy presidential election in 1800 when the Electoral College’s votes tied, so the vote fell to the House of Representatives. It took thirty-six rounds of voting to break a tie in the House, ultimately making Thomas Jefferson the president.

Amendment XII states that the Electoral College would make separate votes for president and vice-president (under the original Article 2, the person receiving the most Electoral College votes would be president, and the runner-up would be vice-president).

Also, in the case of a tie vote for president in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives would vote. They would choose between the top three candidates, with each state having one vote. In the case of an Electoral College tie for the vice-president, the Senate chooses from between the top two candidates, with each senator having one vote.

Amendment XII

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

The transcript is from National Archives (archives.gov).

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This short amendment was a compromise between two factions of the founding fathers: the Anti-federalists and the Federalists.

The Anti-federalists did not want an overly strong federal government. They feared that a powerful national government would become tyrannical and take away people’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, they wanted to make certain there was a clear Bill of Rights in the Constitution to keep power in check.

The opposing faction, the Federalists, believed that people had self-evident, unalienable rights: equality, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. They feared that if they included a specified Bill of Rights, some future tyrant would take away ALL rights that were not specifically listed in a Bill of Rights. They said our natural rights were more than could be enumerated in the Constitution.

The compromise was carried out by James Madison, who, inspired by the Virginia Declaration of Rights (along with other documents), wrote out the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IX clarifies that just because a right is listed in the Constitution, doesn’t mean that other rights are invalidated.

This in many ways is a reframe of Article 12 in the pre-amended Constitution. (Article 12: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

The transcript comes from National Archives (archives.gov)

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The founding fathers harkened back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689 and Virginia’s Declaration of Rights to protect us from excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was of particular importance to some of the delegates at the Constitutional Congress. They feared that a more powerful federal government would fall into dangerous practices to enforce its authority. Patrick Henry feared that without a check on punishments, Congress itself might use Inquisition-type tortures against opponents.

However, Americans still debate what constitutes cruel and unusual punishments. That’s what our nation is about: the freedom to debate, the freedom of speech, the freedom of petition. If you have an opinion on the Eighth Amendment, let your elected officials know!

The text of this Amendment is from National Archives (archives.gov)

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This is an interesting Amendment. Our founding fathers wanted to preserve the right to juries in civil (not criminal) cases. In the complexities of life before the War for Independence, civil juries were one way Americans could poke back at their British rulers. Today, the National Constitution Center reports that the United States is almost the only nation that still allows juries in civil trials.

The transcript for this Amendment is from National Archives (archives.gov). Brief explanation bolded and italicized after each section.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,

Preservation Clause

This clause preserves the right to a civil trial in federal cases, where the controversy is greater than twenty dollars.

and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Re-examination Clause

This clause prevents judges from overturning a jury’s decision, according to the rules of common law. (The discussion of common law requires a bit more expertise. I would refer you to the National Constitution Center’s bipartisan discussions on this topic.)

Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that the justice process was fair, thus we have the details in both Amendments V and VI.

The transcript is from National Archives (archives.gov). Brief explanations bolded and italicized after each section.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

Right to a speedy and public trial

Trials shall be conducted in open and transparent situations and with reasonable speed.

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,

Right to an Impartial Jury

The accused has the right to an impartial jury and to be tried in the state and district where the crime was committed.

and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

Right to be Informed of the charges

The accused has the right to know what the charges are.

to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

Right to Confront Witnesses

The accused has the right of cross-examination and confrontation of witnesses against them.

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

Right to Obtain Favorable Witnesses

The accused has the right to have witnesses in their favor.

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Right to Legal Representation

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused. However, the role of public defender for defendants who could not afford to pay a lawyer has evolved gradually, beginning in 1893 with the advocacy of Clara Shortridge Foltz, California’s first female lawyer. The right to legal counsel for those who were accused of non-capital crimes but could not afford to pay lawyers was not assured until 1963 with the case Gideon vs Wainright.

There’s a lot packed in this one little Amendment! Thanks for reading through the Constitution with me!

Many of the rights in the Fifth Amendment are rooted in old English common law. The grand jury clause has roots back to the Magna Carta. The founding fathers wanted to assure that these rights are not forgotten.

Transcript is from National Archives (archives.gov). Explanations italicized in bold between clauses.

Amendment V

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;

Grand Jury Clause:

Grand juries are required of capital crime or other infamous crime. A capital crime is a crime punishable by death. An infamous crime is usually a felony crime involving corruption or fraud and has significant public notoriety. (Can you think of any cases of infamous crimes?)

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

Double Jeopardy Clause:

A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime (this does not include mistrials).

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

Self-incrimination:

A person cannot be required to testify against themselves. This is why some people say, “I plead the fifth.” It is also the root of the Miranda Rights that officers are supposed to read to persons being questioned. (Based on Supreme Court decision Miranda vs Arizona in 1966.)

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Due Process Clause:

The Due Process Clause is going to take a minute, so bear with me. Due Process is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment for federal-level issues. Due Process is further protected (or “incorporated”) at state-level by the Fourteenth Amendment. (This information is from National Constitution Center.)

There are three kinds of Due Process. 1) procedural due process, 2) incorporated due process against the states, and 3) substantive due process. We’ll look quickly at 1 and 3.

Procedural due process is the procedures the government must follow before depriving a person of “life, liberty, or property”. Normally, this means a jury trial is required. However, beginning with Mullane vs Central Hanover Bank (1950), there may be other ways to cover due process as long as a person 1) receives notice, 2) has an opportunity to be heard, and 3) receives an impartial tribunal.

Think about this one when you read about potential cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. Interestingly, when courts think of “life, liberty, and property” they see “property” as more than simply tangible stuff. In Goldberg vs Kelly (1970), welfare benefits receive property rights. If a court is to deprive a person of property they must establish 1) the nature of the property right, 2) the adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures, and 3) the burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. (Mathews vs Eldridge, 1976). (from National Constitution Center’s Due Process article)

Substantive Due Process: This simply says that due process also covers substantive rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Substantive rights are based more on the traditional concept of our natural rights, which are so many that they cannot be enumerated in one Constitution. The Supreme Court has reserved the right to interpret what those look like in each generation.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Takings Clause or Eminent Domain:

The government can take property for public use. However, the person must receive just compensation.

Read today’s Amendment carefully. This is an amendment that separates us from countries that have fallen under autocratic, freedom-extinguishing regimes. Those of us who were raised in the Cold War era remember the stories of Stalin and the gulags, of the Nazi regime and concentration camps, of China and the Cultural Revolution, etc. One of the hallmarks of these government forms is that the government usurps the right to invade homes, person, and properties to look for something of offense.

Of course, here in America, we have plenty of shameful examples of unconstitutional unreasonable searches and lack of probable cause. Americans of color can tell about that. Even today, Black parents have to have “the talk” with their teens about police officers and traffic stops.

Transcript is from National Archives (archives.gov)

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Explanation

Here are the ways that the courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment (this information is from USCourts.gov). BTW- some of these court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment are pretty shocking! What can We the People do? We can work on this from a legislative stance, our state and/or federal legislatures can pass legislation clarifying our Fourth Amendment rights.

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. However, a warrantless search may be lawful if:

HOMES

-An officer has been given consent to search.

-If the search is incident to a lawful arrest.

-If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances.

-If the items are in plain view.

A PERSON

-When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions.

SCHOOLS

-School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all circumstances.

CARS

-Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.

-An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.

-An officer may conduct at pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.

-The use of a narcotics-detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.

-Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicions.

– An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.

– A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combatting drunk driving.

-A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.

– However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.

What keeps our government or law enforcement from overstepping and violating our Fourth Amendment rights?

We the People. Remember, we are the fourth branch of government and exercising our First Amendment rights to free speech is absolutely necessary. When you see a violation of the Constitution, speak up. Call, visit, or write your elected officials, write about it on your social media, pray about what else God might have you do that is in line with the First Amendment right to petition and assemble.

Also, know your rights. Check valid legal sources for information on how to handle situations where someone comes to your door, stops you on the sidewalk, or stops your car. This reminds me of the early days of homeschooling, when truant officers at the door were a common problem. All of us homeschooling parents had truant-officer-at-the-door drills with our kids. One of the powerful tools we had was Home School Legal Defense Association. If a truant officer came to the door, we just called HSLDA and handed the phone out the door to the officer. That usually made the issue disappear.

Thanks for reading the Constitution in a Month with me. If we know our Constitution and stand up for it, it cannot be stolen from us by shifty politicians.