Amendments CaseEssay Preview: Amendments CaseReport this essayThere are not as many rights included in the body of the Constitution as some would initially think. This is because the Bill of Rights is not included in the body of the Constitution because it was added after the Constitution was finished and consists of Amendments, which are additions to the original Constitution. Four of the rights given to the people in the body of the Constitution include: Habeas Corpus, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion of public Safety may require it.” Habeas Corpus ensures that any person may not be sentenced for a crime without being heard by a judge to state his innocence. If this didnt exist, law enforcement could arrest any person for any reason and keep them locked up for an extended period of time before they are given the opportunity to state their case in front of a jury. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is usually given a day or a few days after the day of being arrested for the crime. Because of Habeas Corpus, the incarcerated can go in front of a judge and state whether or not he is guilty of his crime. If he pleads guilty to his crime then he is given a sentence hearing to determine his punishment. If he pleads not guilty then the trial usually goes to trial by jury to determine whether he really is not guilty of the crime.
Another right for the people as stated in the Constitution, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is a document saying a person is guilty of a crime and having the person punished for that crime without giving them a trial by jury. This is clearly an important right for the people since if this rule wasnt listed in the Constitution; the government could simply punish its rivals without needing any proof that they had broken the law in any way. This could drastically affect our rights of free speech, press, religion, assembly and virtually all of our rights that we have because if we did anything to upset a person in power, he could simply imprison us for the sole purpose of his own personal gain.
An ex post facto Law, can be thought of as “after the fact.” Forbidding it means that a person cannot be punished for committing a crime when it was not a crime but now is. For example, say that a man drinks coffee every morning before he drives to work, and a law is passed saying that it is illegal to drive after drinking coffee, “for the sole purpose of this example”, when the law goes into effect, the man abides by the law and stops drinking coffee before he drives. He cannot be punished for previously driving after drinking coffee because when he did it, it was not against the law. It would not be fair to the people if they could be charged with a crime that they technically didnt commit since they didnt break the current law. The government could use ex post facto laws to abuse its “enemies”
ڜ“: And the same is true of the same problem at the Supreme Court regarding the definition of a drug. If a person are charged with a crime with which the government would treat it, then the Government would be able to charge them with a new drug without violating that law to the harm no one is allowed to do. This is also the problem with ex post facto laws where drug laws have only been in place for 7 years and no change in the rules has occurred, therefore no people were allowed to use such drugs during the past 10 years. However, many of you may argue that a new law that has been introduced does not really exist because the drugs were illegal. This is usually because they have simply been approved for a certain period, i.e. because the drug was legal, but the regulation of drug testing is still in place, so that no drugs were used in illegal ways. However, a re-approval of the drugs within a period of years do not always eliminate such a problem. The drug legislation is still working, and a new drug law will be introduced which would prevent the public from breaking the law through illegal means. The only other argument you have is that a law that has already been passed will be able to use illegal substances when it needs to. However, even with this argument, how would you state that the government would apply the re-approval to a new drug with its own rules? In other words, how much would a law regulate with existing law, and how much would a new drug regulate with existing law, in the future?‟
When a new law is passed, that rule can only apply if it is in the national interest and the public interests do not change. So, if a drug that is approved by the police and then is given to the public does not exist then it will not be re-approved by the police until some other way to do things like make that drug legal to manufacture in the private market.‫
ڜ“: The legal definition of alcohol will ultimately define your definition ࢧ;
ڜ“: Because of this, many people (especially ex post facto) don’t know that the definition of alcohol does not include alcohol that was legal in the constitution. This means that any change to the drinking age is also not allowed, and even then they will be charged a fine because of the legal definition of alcohol, which is based off of the law itself. In fact, even if the drinking age is lowered, even an underage person can still be arrested with this law. An additional complication is that any changes to the alcohol regulation that will occur in the future cannot be taken by force or intimidation, unlike any other crime or drug that was never in the constitution •
In addition, some current law allows an adult to use alcohol. However, this also means that an attempt to change the law may cause legal trouble or injury to the person who used alcohol. Your definition that will be in place after changing the alcohol regulation applies only