Double Your Rankings
I've been behind on ranking the amendments. You get to reap the benefits.
Every Advent, Anonymous and I purchase an Advent calendar for Blue. It’s not a typical calendar that one hangs on the wall, but a box filled with treats that we give him every night. Blue is not religious but super food-motivated, so these unexpected treats are a welcomed gift. If they happen to bring him closer to the Lord, then that is just icing on the cake.
We are a little behind in giving Blue his daily Christmas goodie, which means there are some days when our boy gets two treats, like last night. He benefits from our oversight and thinks he did something great to be so deserving. Frankly, he is.
The same can be said for our ranking of the Amendments to the United States Constitution. We are nearing the end, and since I’m a little behind, I’ll be doubling the rankings for the next two weeks – which means we rank #4 and #3 today and finish everything off with #2 and #1 the following week.
My oversight is your benefit.
We continue our focus on the Bill of Rights, where British Common Law was used to protect the freedoms of individuals from the government. By forcing the government to be very transparent and intentional when prosecuting citizens for crimes and not overdoing it when it comes to punishments when those crimes are committed, we have a country that should be fair and equal.
You ready for your extra treats?
First up is the Fifth Amendment—the one you see on a regular television crime show.
Let’s dive in.
4: Amendment V
Its purpose: The right of citizens of the United States to a Grand Jury, not be charged twice for the same crime, no obligation to help their own prosecution, be afforded due process, and not have their property taken by the government without compensation.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
Year proposed: 1789
Year Ratified: 1791
The Good:
Double Jeopardy is a great movie. Sure, it got mixed reviews, but Ashley Judd starred in it, and that’s good enough for me.
The plot is based on Judd being wrongfully convicted of murdering her husband. When she finds out he faked his death to carry on an affair with a woman who isn’t half as pretty as Judd, she sets out to kill him. Judd executes this plan on the advice of a lawyer she befriended while in prison. If you ever end up in prison, take advice from those convicted of a crime suggesting you commit a crime.
After hunting down the lying, cheating, no-good husband while having Tommy Lee Jones chase her like she was Harrison Ford, Judd successfully offed her former betrothed. Judd confidently proclaims that she can’t be convicted twice for the same crime due to Double Jeopardy and roll the credits for this beautiful, intelligent woman.
Thank you, Fifth Amendment, for protecting our rights not to be convicted twice and inspiring a movie with Ashley Judd.
The Bad:
In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old girl. During his interrogation, Miranda signed a confession that stated police didn’t threaten him, understood his rights, and that statements he made would be used against him – stuff like a signed statement of a confession.
In what would become a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Miranda vs. Arizona that the police did not inform Ernesto of his right to an attorney or that he could, in fact, shut up and not say anything.
We now know of Miranda Rights, where you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to have an attorney, if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. You have the right to cable TV, the right to never leave your car when purchasing food, and the right to vote for people who ultimately want America to turn into a dictatorship.
What’s bad about the Miranda case is that Miranda was retried, convicted, and sentenced to 20-30 years. He was paroled in 1972 and killed in a bar fight in January 1976. Not really an inspiring figure when it comes to protections against self-incrimination.
Another bad thing was President Richard Nixon, and other conservatives denounced the decision because they thought it interfered with the good work of the police.
The guy who resigned the office of the presidency so he wouldn’t have to go through the procedure of impeachment thought it was okay for the police to do whatever they needed to do to get a conviction.
Bad, bad, bad.
The Ugly:
In 2005, Kelo vs. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city using eminent domain to take Susette Kelo’s home so developers could turn it into a booming economic center that featured affordable housing, retail shops, etc.
This controversial 5-4 decision expanded the state’s right to seize personal property. It explained that the public would benefit from tearing down blighted homes for economic development because jobs would magically appear, and having jobs in a place makes everything better because the public could have jobs and would show up at retail stores.
You’d be surprised who voted to take Ms. Kelo’s home. Justice John P. Stevens wrote for the majority, while Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy joined him.
On the other side was Clarence Thomas, one of questionable ethics, who wrote a bunch of dissents stating that taking from the poor and giving to the rich was a reverse form of Robin Hood syndrome.
I can’t believe there is a case where I agree with Thomas. Maybe there are others, but it’s ugly when Clarence is on the right side of a wrong decision.
As for the development? It never happened. Millions of tax dollars were wasted, and a massive redevelopment plan to benefit the public went down the drain.
Who proposed it?
James Madison.
He gave a speech regarding the five provisions of the Amendment, and all five were approved. He listed the Grand Jury clause last, and it ended up being first in the final version.
If you are at a holiday party, drop this piece of knowledge on that annoying co-worker or friend of a friend who won’t leave you alone.
Guarantee they will leave immediately.
Why did I rank it here?
I must be honest, the Double Jeopardy movie weighed heavily on my thinking. But this amendment has many other protections that make it worthy of a top-five ranking.
Grand Jury, due process, and don’t take my place unless you pay me are all important guardrails against a government that would have no issue with coming after you if they wished to.
Do you rank amendments based on the movies that they inspire? Do you think all these clauses are related? What do you think about the government taking your house and building a highway where it used to stand?
Okay, let me know what you think of my ranking.
Next up is the Eighth Amendment. We needed reasonable punishments for those who have wronged us and needed constitutional protection so that when we convict you of a crime, we won’t throw you into a lion pit and watch you get devoured like this was ancient Rome.
Let’s Dive in.
3: Amendment VIII
Its purpose: The government can’t be excessive in bail, fines, or unusual punishment when citizens are convicted of a crime.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-8/
Year proposed: 1789
Year Ratified: 1791
The Good:
Richard Austin lived in a mobile home in South Dakota in the late 1980s. I’m sure he had an excellent, quiet life. He was a small businessman who owned a local auto body shop.
He even had a side hustle, which, in this case, living in rural South Dakota in the late 1980s, meant he was a drug dealer.
Richard was arrested and convicted of one count of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He was sentenced to seven years in prison.
The federal government then wanted to seize Richard’s mobile home and business under statutes that allowed the government to take property that was used or intended to be used to facilitate the transportation of drugs. Taking a man’s mobile home for his side hustle seems to be a bit excessive. Richard felt the same way and sued all the way to the Supreme Court.
In Austin vs. the United States, the Court unanimously agreed with Richard. They decided that despite his illegal side hustle, the government couldn’t take a man’s bed, his tiny kitchen, and the little front room that probably had a beat-up old brown couch where he most likely sold drugs.
The Court ruled that the government had violated the excessive fines clause.
So good for you, Richard.
The Bad:
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman vs. Georgia that the death penalty was not applied consistently across states and that states had to remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects that would violate the clause of being cruel and unusual. There was a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.
Four years later, in Gregg vs. Georgia, the Court clarified this ruling and said electrocuting, injecting poisons, or making them read Okay History’s rankings nonstop until a convicted criminal dies was now acceptable. The national moratorium was lifted.
A few Justices said that the death penalty was justifiable because it allowed for retribution and deterrence. Retribution is still a thing in national politics.
Even though there’s not much empirical data that would suggest that the death penalty has deterred people from committing crimes, people still think that knowing you could be strapped to a gurney and filled with toxins until you suffocate will make you think twice about killing your lying, cheating, no good husband who should have never been married to Ashley Judd in the first place.
I’m not even married to Ashley Judd, and I would kill that dude for what he did to her.
I’m going to put this out there. For a country that claims Jesus invented it, it never ceases to amaze me that we allow the death penalty, a punishment Christ himself unjustly suffered.
Of course, with the Jesus example, the gates of heaven are now open. So there’s that.
The Ugly:
During the debate for this Amendment, House Representative Samual Livermore of New Hampshire balked at the term “cruel and unusual,” arguing that it was “too indefinite.”
He went on to support his claims by stating that sometimes it’s necessary to hang someone. I bet a lot of white guys nodded in agreement.
Livermore continued by saying that villains deserved to be whipped and maybe cut their ears off.
Then he asked his colleagues if preventing the government from doing these things was wise because someone else decided they were cruel.
My goodness, Samuel. I’d cut my ears off not to listen to this garbage.
Then I’d give them to Ashley Judd, like Van Gogh. It’s Van Gogh, right? This isn’t Okay Art History, so I have no idea.
Who proposed it?
James Madison. Okay, James, we get it. You wrote a lot of Amendments.
Former Justice Antonin Scalia once argued that legislators were smarter than judges in taking the pulse of what would be deemed decent in society at any given time and could change the laws accordingly. So, it shouldn’t be up to judges to decide if ears should be cut off.
I always love it when judges tell us they aren’t that smart and yet speak in a manner that demonstrates that they do, in fact, believe they are way more intelligent than any of us.
Why did I rank it here?
You are probably surprised I have the Eighth Amendment this high. But here’s the deal - this constitutional check allows the courts to consider whether long-accepted forms of punishment are still acceptable within the confines of an evolving standard of decency.
This means that we can’t execute children or those who have developmental disabilities. We no longer accept the idea of sentencing minors convicted of crimes to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some of us remember the Jesus example and his speech about being merciful and whatnot.
This amendment can continue to shape how merciful we desire to be when those among us do great harm. That’s a great thing. This is a great amendment.
Do you agree? Do you think we follow the spirit of this amendment? Do you think we will ever evolve away from the death penalty?
Did I mention Ashley Judd too much?
Okay, let me know what you think of my ranking.
This is the last weekend of freedom before Christmas holiday traveling begins. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, which includes folding clothes I will be giving away to Goodwill.
I have this mountain of clothes lying on the floor in the spare bedroom, staring at me like, “Hey, what’s going on with us? You used to wear us, and then you kept us in drawers, and now we are on the ground. You Okay?”
There’s nothing worse than being judged by your clothes. And yes, clothes, I’m Okay.
Earlier this week, we gave Blue all of his toys back. If he understood what Christmas was all about, his anticipation of the actual day would be enormous. Despite the increase in treats, Blue is defying the odds by losing a significant amount of weight. If there was a little less of me at the moment, that pile of clothes would be smaller.
Thank you for your support of Okay History. If you like the content, share it with a friend or family member. Please share it with strangers in line at the coffee shop. It’s the season of sharing.
I’ll be back on Monday, giving you your regularly scheduled treat of history lessons.
Appreciate you all. Have a wonderful weekend, and may your clothes be supportive.
Okay,
Chris
Great read and just the right amount of Ashley Judd.
And thus, we have Ernesto Miranda to thank for the famous litany recited in every film and television show involving the police since the mid-1960s when an arrest is made. ("You have the right to remain silent...", etc.)