The Bill Of Rights

In the fifty first letter in the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, it states, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” James Madison was the person that proposed the Bill of Rights, and this quote really shows why he did it. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the people from the government taking away their rights as humans. It is a way to keep the government in check and from turning tyrannical. As such, there is one amendment that stand above the rest in a general superiority sense and another that is the most interpretable of the lot. The Founding Fathers must have had a plan for the future when creating the …show more content…
The great sword is showy, big, and has a lot of people that use it. The shield is less popular and impossible to use as a weapon, however without the shield some grievous bodily harm could occur. With that in mind, out of all of the amendments the most important is the ninth. The ninth amendment basically says that these are just the rights they could think of right now, but they probably missed some, and even if they didn’t write them, those can’t be infringed on either. It’s there to protect human rights and future amendments. The protection of the future is what is so important. All of the amendments protect human rights, but the ninth is the only one that protects the future. Without it, then the government could have construed any amendments made after the Bill of Rights as not important nor something that had to be followed. Then all the rights that are currently in use widely throughout The United States may have been in danger of not being respected, followed, or even legitimate. They may have even decided that they couldn’t make any new ratification after the Bill of Rights, due to the implications of it being the only rights of man. Other than that, there are many “maybes” when it comes to the importance of the ninth amendment, but none of the “maybes” are things to be taken lightly. If there is even a chance that these situations …show more content…
The wording of this amendment is highly ambiguous. Everything about it is about interpretation and whether something is interpreted as either “excessive” or “cruel and unusual”. By wording the amendment with the terms such as those it makes it difficult to say what either mean specifically. Both are decided on a case by case basis. There haven’t been any concrete laws that create a “excessive” ceiling on bail. Such a law would make it so that a judge can’t pass bail of over a specific amount for a specific crime. The reason there is no such law is probably due to that there is no way of being able to accurately guess all the extenuating circumstances for a crime. According to the CRS Annotated Constitution, to get challenge a bail ruling, it is necessary to make a motion for a reduction, if the motion is denied then an appeal must be made to the Court of Appeals, and if it is still denied then it would go to the Supreme Court Justice in that circuit. It may be open to interpretation, but at least there is the possibility of it being interpreted by many people. Though the “cruel and unusual” was originally meant to refer to methods of torture, it is now broadened into a new form; one that is much more ambivalent. It never goes into detail nor does it explain itself at all, and that is why the meaning behind “cruel and unusual” is so debatable. There are some that say the death penalty goes