Group 6: 28th Amendment

Amendment XVIII :

Amend the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which establishes a minimum drinking age of 21 years old, and punishes states that allows persons under 21 years of age to purchase and publicly possess alcohol, to a minimum drinking age of 18 years old. 

[Mastermansocsci37] The United States has one of the most serious alcohol abuse problems in the world, yet, our minimum drinking age is one of the highest in the world at 21 years old. For the majority of the globe's countries, the minimum drinking age is 18 years old:

(some of the 18-year old countries are cut off, so there are more)

 

Perhaps it's time to think about why that is. 

Deprivation may be the answer. 

When a person is deprived from something for a long time, they might be more excited to grab it at any chance possible. In the United States, alcohol has a great presence in popular culture. Children are able to approach alcohol when people in their families consume it, they see it on television when it's portrayed as people "having a good time", kids grow up seeing alcohol, yet they aren't grown up educated in it. 

So when they turn legal, or when they enter college, a private vicinity where the substance can be readily available, well...they leap. Many do not know their limits, and end up on stretchers and ambulances outside college campuses.

Take France for example, the minimum drinking age is 18 years old, but there is no restriction for minors drinking in public. Rather, drinking alcohol over there is seen as an art. Parents are seen teaching their children the art of wine at the age of 10. 

Because alcohol is seen as an art, children are taught to be well versed in it at a young age, it isn't seen as a way to "enjoy oneself" as much as it is seen here. It's the mentality of it that's different. When the public perception of a substance is healthy, that generally produces healthier habits.

It is not to say that this amendment will produce immediate results. It won't. Not until parents learn to educate their children properly on the consumption of alcohol, and that will take at least a few generations. 

However, getting rid of deprivation can be a big factor in helping with the alcohol abuse in the U.S. Since many 18 year olds violate the current law anyway, why not amend it to the age of 18, like it is in many places in the world? 

Perhaps, if parents are allowed to educate their children earlier under their supervision, the children will learn to understand their bodies' signals, develop tolerance, and stop when they really should. 

Again, this will take the general change in attitude and education in relation to the consumption of alcohol, and results will not be immediate, but it can be a start to leading the youth of the U.S to a better place. If other countries can do it, why not the U.S?

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Plain English
Senators are elected by popular votes. Each state has two senators who will be in office for six years. In the event that a senator leaves office before the end of his or her term, the executive authority of the state can appoint a temporary senator.

Background

This amendment was passed on June 12th, 1911. Before then, state legislatures had elected Senators. The opinion that the Senators should be elected by the people had been presented for decades. During this time period, Progressivism - the political movement dedicated towards pushing government towards reform - was popular, and the passage of this amendment was a big victory for Progressivism. People saw this as an end to corruption in state legislatures. The Framers sought to protect state independence, thus they were against this amendment; however, by the 19th century, such Progressivism gained popularity and ultimately succeeded.

Effect on The U.S.

This protects a certain type of balance within Congress. The House members are based on state inhabitant proportion, so having a set 2 Senators per state allows for the smaller states to regain a bigger voice. The policy of electing Senators also allows a fuller democracy, with more involvement from the people on choosing which people to represent them while deciding important policies for the country.

Personal Opinions/Effect on us

As an 18-year-old, I like this amendment. By changing the election of senators to popular vote only provides new voters like me another opportunity to get involved. I think the main issue with this amendment depends on the amount of knowledge we have for the candidates. The good side of having state legislature appointed senators is that the legislature probably knows more about politics and these candidates then the average voters. While doing the representative project, I for one had no idea who my rep was. If I didn’t have to do a project on him, I probably would still not know who he is now. I think there is a lack involvement between government officials and voters. Allowing people to vote for their own senators can either encourage people to look more into politics or they might just vote randomly or not vote at all. 

Amendment XIV

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.

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.

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.

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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Plain English

Amendment XIV is divided into 5 sections. Section 1 states that everyone born in United States or naturalized are citizens of the United States. States cannot enforce laws that abridge the rights and privileges of a citizen. Section 2: the number of representative for each state is proportional to the population. If a male is over 21 but cannot vote, he is not counted with the population. Section 3: someone who committed a crime or was an enemy of united states cannot be elected as a government official unless 2/3 of each house in congress vote to remove this restrain. Section 4: Public debt of the U.S, including those that went towards suppressing insurrection or rebellion is valid. Neither the U.S. nor the States should assume debt or pay debt that went towards supporting insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. or towards the loss/emancipation of any slave; such debts are illegal and shall be void. Section 5: congress has to the right to enforce amendment XIV.

Historical Background

Amendment XIV was part of the Reconstruction Amendments that was proposed after the Civil War. It was passed by Congress in June 1866. Its goal was to grant freed blacks citizenship. Due to the existing tension between the North and the South after the war, the South was reluctant in ratifying the amendment. At the time the battle was between Andrew Johnson who favored the South, and the Radical Republicans in the North. When all but one of the southern states ratified the amendment, the Radical Republicans took action and imposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867. The act forces the southern states to ratify the amendment or else they wouldn’t be readmitted to the country. 

Effects On The U.S.

Personal Opinion/Effects On Us

[Mastermansocsci35]
 I think that all citizens of United States will agree with the first section of this amendment. It protects our rights as citizens. In the past, while doing moot court, I noticed that a lot of the cases can be argued and were argued with section 1 of this amendment. I do think that though the amendment is good, it is too broad, which is why it applies to many cases. 

I also don’t agree with section 3. I don’t think that congress can remove the restraint that easily. If it was felony against the country then I don’t think I can trust a government official like that. 
[Mastermansocsci37]
To be honest, the sections of this amendment standing alone is a bit outdated, especially since sections deal with slavery/emancipation and insurrections/rebellions that do not affect us today. However the first section affects every single person in the U.S. I was born in the U.S. so I am thankful that this fact makes me an automatic citizen. Likewise I am also thankful that my parents, who are immigrants, are able to become naturalized citizens. My mom took her test recently, actually. I helped her study for it. It's funny she waited 30 years to do it though. My dad was even allowed to be her translator during the test. Most of my family are naturalized citizens and so I am very grateful.

Media

[cannot link] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/14th-amendment-adopted 

  

Amendment VI

"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; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." 

Plain English

Amendment VI grants several rights to the accused in criminal prosecutions: the right to a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the location where the criminal act was committed, the right for the accused to be informed of his or her accusation, the right to question witnesses, the right to mandate the summon of any witnesses who can contribute to the case, and the right for an attorney (if the accused is unable to hire his or her own attorney, he or she will be assigned one by court). The Supreme Court has extended the protection of this amendment to the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Background

Ratified in 1791. Before the Due Process/ Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th amendment, this amendment originally only applied to criminal actions brought by the federal government.

The Founding Fathers designed this amendment to prevent the defendant’s life from being disrupted for too long and to reduce the chance that witnesses and evidence will disappear. This originates back to the ideals of 12^th century England, where The Assize of Clarendon (act written by Henry II, revolutionized English Law) declared that justice must be provided to the accused “speedily enough”. This prevents the accused from staying in jail for an indefinite period of time before receiving a trial, as well as the lessening of his ability to prepare a defense.

The right to public trial originated in 17^th century England, when defendant John Lilburn argued that the British Common Law entitled him a public trial where spectators are allowed, ultimately triumphing over the English Court of Oyer and Terminer. The Founding Fathers believed that this will prevent corrupt judges and encourage anyone with information to come forth and testify.

The right to trial by impartial jury originated in the Magna Charta in 1215. The Founding Fathers found that England’s way of letting the Crown interfere with deliberation that may harm the royal government in any way is unjust and hoped to prevent that with this right.

All in all, the Sixth Amendment was the product of the Founding Father’s efforts to include these fundamental rights of fairness, in the face of law, into our Constitution.

Personal Thoughts/ Effect on the US

We think this amendment is crucial in creating fair and just criminal prosecutions. Amendment VI's purpose is to insure a reminder that the accused is only the accused and not the guilty. This amendment stresses the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. In imposing the enactment of protecting the rights of the accused, we strongly agree with the sixth amendment.

The pros of this amendment is quite obvious: to eliminate prejudice that leads to court officials slipping through loopholes simply to force upon the guilty name to an accused. It is narrowing down on the issue that people can become very prejudiced with information from the media. An unbiased juror is very important because they are the people who decide on the outcome of the case and we wouldn't want someone who is biased to decide one's fate. We think that the procedure of jury selection is well organized. [Mastermansocsci35:] I remember my teacher in 7th grade told my class about one of her jury duty experiences and how she was excused from it. When they showed the group of selected possible jurors the people associated with the trial, she found out she knew someone in the group. It wasn't even someone she knew well or was close with, but because of this, she was excused from jury duty. I like how this process really shows that they are trying to get rid of prejudice to create a fair trial. 

However, there is a slight flaw in this amendment, the right to have an attorney or otherwise be assigned one. If the accused is financially unable to hire an attorney, the court appoints one. That can affect the results of the case depending on the assigned attorney. What if the attorney did not wish to accept the case in the first place and was simply forced upon, thus fought it half-heartedly? This flaw was evident in The 12-Angry-Men. The lawyer representing the accused was appointed and thus missed a lot of details that might have turned the case around if he fought for the boy whole-heartily. Again, this is an issue of prejudice. The single jury from The 12-Angry-Men was able to see the flaws in the prosecuting team's argue because he was unbiased and saw the accused as innocent until he can prove him guilty. We think this is the most glaring issue with this amendment. 

Effect On Us 

We believe that this amendment is absolutely crucial and fundamental, just like the Freedom of Speech or the Freedom of Religion. We cannot imagine trials conducted unfairly or with prejudice, it is a right that has been ingrained into our way of thinking, a given.

 As teenagers living in a big city like Philadelphia, we are frequently surrounded by crime. It is simply ridiculous to imagine a justice system that does not grant the right to a speedy trial or an impartial jury. If the accused were held indefinitely in jail but later found to be innocent, the true wrongdoers could be roaming free and committing more crime, making our city an even more dangerous place than it now is. If there is bias within the jury, then an innocent may be sent to jail when the true wrongdoer continues his crime. [Mastermansocsci37] I personally live in a neighborhood where I do not always feel safe in, so I am thankful that trials are conducted speedily with an impartial jury and witnesses to be summoned. I think this justice system allows for efficient trials that can help control the city's crime rate.

[37] Likewise, if I or a family member were to be arrested and charged for a crime, I would feel safer in the hands of our justice system, which grants a higher chance of correct judgment. My uncle has previously been involved in a trial, and due to financial issues, he was not able to hire his own attorney and thus was assigned one. Not being fluent in law or English, it would've been to his huge disadvantage had the court not hired an attorney for him to later prove his innocence.