How do i find original info on why Madison inserted the compensation requirement into the 5th amendment?
397393
Try perusing the Federalist Papers for an argument for it or finding his notes from the Constitutional Convention (probably at a college library). Good luck!
1090487
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.
334684
Yes. And if you doubt that answer, ask people the following questions:\n\n1. What 5 rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment (Speech, religion, petition the government, assemble, and press).\n\n2. What does the 10th amendment say?\n\nI doubt most people could get one right, much less two.
822054
You just have to read each of the amendments, and do it yourself. Then look on line for summaries and explanations, (search "bill of rights", "US constitution")then just rephrase.
296614
on you're browser type 1st amendment of USA at the bottom of the browser swith to images and you should have pages to choose from good luck
959090
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention in which only three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegate James Wilson.\n\nNorthern delegates generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, Southern slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and Electoral College (taxation was only a secondary issue). The final compromise of counting slaves as only three fifths of their actual numbers is generally credited with giving the South disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War.\n\nThe three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:\n\n"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." \n\n[edit] Origins\nThe three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The North had proposed counting all the slaves; the South insisted that slaves were not as productive, and suggested counting half the slaves. After proposed compromises of 2/3 and 3/4 failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. Though this amendment failed by falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles (only New Hampshire and New York opposing it), the ratio was a ready solution to the impasse in the Constitutional Convention. Notice, however, that the situation was quite different in the Constitutional Convention. In amending the Articles of Confederation, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because this was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.
136309
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“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.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
778020
The only way Constitutional laws apply to your case is in theory, by the spirit of natural laws contained in the First Amendment, if you equate the situation you are in with a form of "due process" or "petitioning" to redress grievances and to establish justice. \n\nThis same First Amendment that proclaims the freedom of speech, or of the press (written or spoken communication) also protects the right of the people "peaceably" to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.  So any abuse of freedom of speech, press or religion to cause disruption or "breach of the peace" actually violates the same set of laws that naturally check and balance each other when considered together in context.  \n\nThis inherent balance between First Amendment rights can be seen in Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous example, that you cannot abuse freedom of speech to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  My point is that since this would cause an undue disturbance or breach of the peace, it abridges the right of the people "peaceably" to assembly in the theatre, and thus violates the very same law used to invoke free speech.\n\nToday, more specific legislation has been written concerning hate\ncrimes and harassment, which also concern this same natural check on personal freedoms.\n\nOnly if both parties in a dialogue agree to abide by the same rules and respect the peace while they "petition" each other, can these Constitutional laws be used to protect you from invasion or infringement of your equal right to peace and freedom and protection.  If the other party does not seem to respect your rights equally, you can peacefully "petition" to do so by addressing them directly as a peer to correct the problem between you as amicably as possible, and advising them that failure to resolve this civilly will force you to report this to authorities as a criminal threat issued over the internet.  If the person has published false or damaging statements about you, to do so in spoken word is slander and to do so in written word is libel; and both are unlawful and are grounds for lawsuit.  However, given the expense of a lawsuit, I would rather pursue mediation instead.  It tends to resolve the issue more effectively, without the high cost or risk of legal action, and restores the dignity to both parties.\n\nIf this person has any respect for the very same Constitutional laws by which we invoke freedom of speech and press to communicate, he or she should be compelled to answer your petition as long as you are equally answering their grievances.  Indeed, since the First Amendment reflects natural laws that govern all human nature, I have found most people do respond favorably when asked to help correct a grievance peacefully out of respect for the very laws that they enjoy exercising so freely.\n\nBoth sides would have to agree to stop the threatening behavior and to restore civil communications; or the resulting breach or disruption of the peace is, itself, infringing on the rights and freedom of both parties to petition each other peacefully, through spoken or written word, as equally respectful human beings.
485906
First, read the 11th Amendment, which prevents citizens from suing a state, or a state agency/officer where monetary damages would be paid from the state treasury, in federal court.\n\nThen, talk to an attorney, because any legal suit against any government agency is going to become complicated quickly.
1058035
The US Constitution was written in 1776.  There have been alot of modifications (amendments) since that time but are you referring to just amendments during that five year period?  If you could be a little more specific, I could help you a whole lot more.  Oh yeah, and don't forget  about The Bill Of Rights.  Maybe even just as important.  To keep corruption out of the executive branch (you know--the checks & balance system) that's going to hell as we speak?  or rather write........
653212
From memory:\n\n[I] Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall congress impose any restraints on speech, nor of the press, nor of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.\n\n[II] A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\n[III] No troops shall be quartered in private homes during time of peace, without consent of the owner, nor during time of war except as may be prescribed by law.\n\n[IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, documents and effects shall not be infringed; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nI know that the 5th Amendment includes the right against self-incrimination, against government taking without just compensation, the due process clause, plus a couple other protections I can't remember right now. The 6th guarantees right to a speedy and public trial, right to a jury in criminal trials, and right to counsel in criminal trials. The 7th includes right to a jury in civil trials over a certain amount. The 8th includes the prohibition against excessive bail, and against torture.\n\n[IX] The enumeration of certain rights herein shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.\n\n[X] Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, shall be reserved  for the states and for the people.\n\nThat's it from memory. Then I looked it up. I got some detail wording wrong on all of them, forgot that the prohibition in 4 is only against unreasonable searches, missed the grand jury and double jeopardy clauses of the 5th, the confrontation and notice clauses of the 6th, and it's "cruel and unusual punishment" for the 8th. Oh well, back to studying.
958084
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp\n\nHope that helps. \n\nHere's a link to a clear presentation of the claims about deception that I found helpful: (it doesn't take a stand one way or the other on the amendment, although some of the signators are against it.)\nhttp://stlouis.craigslist.org/pol/229601042.html
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
254883
You can plead the 5th only when it is a matter that may incriminate you!\n\nThe 5th Amendment states that you have the right to not incriminate yourself!
146764
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)[1], is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the U.S. Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury, legally established the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
525264
Technically, it isn't in the U.S. Constitution.  The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1960(?).  But it refers to the fifth amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent".
907207
When is this due? How long does it have to be? And if you had help on it would it help you understand this any better? \n\nMarbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court under Article Three of the United States Constitution.\n\nThe case resulted from a petition to the Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams's Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison to withhold Marbury's and several other mens' commissions. Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.\n\nThere is a lot more, but basically this states the whole premise of judicial review by the federal courts. \n\nCheck Wikipedia, and Compton's Encyclopedia, or any other good encyclopedia. Just don't plagarize, that is, don't use the article word for word. Change it enough so that you are telling it in your own words, that's what narrative means. You are telling the story, not using someone else's words to tell the story. \n\nDoes that help? I believe by the time you get through, you will understand what the prof is asking. I wish I could write this for you, but I can't.