UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA SANTIAGO DE GUAYAQUIL DERECHO CICLO IX

XAVIER MARCELO TORRES SARMIENTO INGLÉS JURÍDICO

FACULTAD DE JURISPRUDENCIA Y CIENCIAS

SOCIALES Y POLITICAS

ACTIVIDAD AUTONOMA TEMA:

7th,8th,9 th AND 10th AMENTMEDS TO THE CONSTITUTION
AUTOR
XAVIER MARCELO TORRES SARMIENTO

TUTOR
AB. MGS. PAOLA MARIA TOSCANINI SEQUEIRA

INGLES JURÍDICO

14 agosto del 2020

CUENCA - ECUADOR

pág. 1
Ab. Mgs. Paola María Toscanini Sequeira
UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA SANTIAGO DE GUAYAQUIL DERECHO CICLO IX
XAVIER MARCELO TORRES SARMIENTO INGLÉS JURÍDICO

Do a small essay reviewing the 7,8,9 and 10 amendment.

200 words minimum per amendment.

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII)

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-
examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
law.

The Seventh Amendment encompasses two clauses. The Preservation Clause ("In Suits at
common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial
by jury shall be preserved") sets out the types of cases juries are required to decide, while
the Re-examination Clause ("[N]o fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in
any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.") prevents
federal judges from overturning jury verdicts in certain ways. The amendment is generally
considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. Scholar
Charles W. Wolfram states that it has usually "been interpreted as if it were virtually a
self-explanatory provision". The term "common law" is used twice in the Seventh
Amendment and means in both cases according to the National Constitution Center "the
law and procedure of the courts that used juries, as opposed to Equity and other courts
that did not use juries".

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.

The Constitution was amended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments as part of
the United States Bill of Rights as a result of objections raised by people such as Abraham
Holmes and Patrick Henry. While Holmes feared the establishment of the Inquisition in
the United States, Henry was concerned with the application of torture as a way of
pág. 2
Ab. Mgs. Paola María Toscanini Sequeira
UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA SANTIAGO DE GUAYAQUIL DERECHO CICLO IX
XAVIER MARCELO TORRES SARMIENTO INGLÉS JURÍDICO

extracting confessions.[2] They also feared that the federal government would misuse its
powers to create federal crimes as well as to punish those who committed them under
the new Constitution and thus use these powers as a way to oppress the
people. Abraham Holmes, a member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention for the
federal constitution, for example noted in a letter from January 30, 1788 that the new
Constitution would give the U.S. Congress the power "to ascertain, point out, and
determine, what kind of punishments shall be inflicted on persons convicted of
crimes." He added with respect those who would belong to the new government under
the new Constitution: "They are nowhere restrained from inventing the most cruel and
unheard-of punishments, and annexing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional
check on them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the most mild instruments of
their discipline."

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any
expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the
Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting
governmental power.

Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of
invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."

The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights was
enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, not against the
states. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government,
which is a government of enumerated powers.

Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to the interpretation of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl
Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the
case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

pág. 3
Ab. Mgs. Paola María Toscanini Sequeira
UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA SANTIAGO DE GUAYAQUIL DERECHO CICLO IX
XAVIER MARCELO TORRES SARMIENTO INGLÉS JURÍDICO

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the
basic and fundamental rights ... I do not mean to imply that the ... Ninth Amendment
constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the
States or the Federal Government ... While the Ninth Amendment – and indeed the entire
Bill of Rights – originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently
enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental
personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are
specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the
existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as
federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the
view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from
infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights
specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X)

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is
limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be
a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme
Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally
ratified".

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from
various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls,
using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote,
from United States v. Darby Lumber Co. reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.
There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory
of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been
established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than
to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not
granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

pág. 4
Ab. Mgs. Paola María Toscanini Sequeira