Misc. Mental Musings

Boxed In

S. G. Lacey

History Box (#0):
The United States Constitution was drafted and signed into law in 1787. This establishment of “We the People” in a novel democratic governance structure by a fledgling nation was a remarkable achievement.

However, an explicit list of essential freedoms wasn’t part of this original document. The lack of comprehensive protections for states and citizens became a substantial point of contention in the ratification process, especially amongst Anti-Federalists.

A detailed Bill of Rights was proposed by George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, during the Constitutional Convention. Many politicians in attendance dismissed this supplemental paperwork as unnecessary, as they were already tired after 4 months of contentious deliberation. As a result of the exclusion, Mason was one of only three individuals out of 42 who refused to sign the Constitution on September 17th, 1787.

Establishing a national Bill of Rights became a lifelong pursuit for Mr. Mason, who declined to act as a representative in the Continental Congress, despite clearly being qualified. Fortunately, he had some valuable political allies. Most notable, fellow statesman James Madison, widely regarded as the preeminent legislative architect of his day, having already penned most of the U.S. Constitution.

During 1789, in preparation for the First Continental Congress session, Madison drafted a list of 19 proposed Constitutional amendments. These articles were based directly off the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was written by Mason.

Though the Americans despised their British tyrant opponents, the verbiage in the U.S. Bill of Rights draws on key historical documents from their parent country: the English Bill of Rights established in 1689, and the Magna Carta crafted way back in 1215.

17 of these new amendments passed the House, then 12 passed the Senate; this condensed list was then sent to states. Ratification required 3/4ths of these geographic entities to align. In 1791, there were 14 states in the Union, after Vermont joined the 13 original colonies.

The states’ deliberation further whittled the list down to 10 critical tenants. The final Bill of Rights format, representing the first 10 Amendments to the original 7 Constitutional articles, was ratified on December 15th, 1791. George Mason, having finally seen his dream of protected freedoms for all citizens of the new republic complete, died less than a year later.

Now, well into the 21st century, these basic personal edicts are just as relevant as the day they were conceived. It’s valuable to examine how core rights have evolved over time; many changes shaped by a combination of impassioned individual advocacy and broad societal shifts.

Referencing history can provide future insights regarding the United States’ perpetually evolving governance structure. Sometimes it’s necessary to think, and act, outside the box.

Soapbox (#1, #7):
The colloquial term “soapbox” originated just exactly the way the wording suggests. No hidden meanings, no witty puns, no double entendres. Since the advent of the town square, not just in fledgling America during the late 18th century, but across Europe for ages, savvy storytellers have sought to engage a live audience.

As these amassed crowds grew in size, or for those who were vertically challenged, a supplemental platform became critical for projecting their sermon. Fortunately, debatably sturdy wooden crates, used for transport of various consumer goods, from tea, to rice, to soap, were readily available around the docks where throngs often gathered.

Just make sure to select the wood type and construction method wisely. Ocean spray, sunny rays, and corrosive salt can do a number on a seemingly solid soapbox. Often, modern practitioners in urban environments utilize more robust infrastructure elements for their diatribes: marble fountains, brick steps, and concrete barriers.

This term’s application has changed over time, from preaching outside the local church, to spreading curated information over the internet. But the intent remains essentially unchanged. To establish a noticeable physical position from which one’s political positions can be espoused.

Freedom of speech was a fundamental virtue underpinning the entire Revolutionary War. This sentiment was driven by a series of transgressions and oppressions by British personnel and policies across the developing New World.

Massachusetts, the state where the infamous Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773, was an epicenter for these frequent conversational clashes. As a result, the region was home to many a famous orator during this volatile period. These gentlemen were some of the fieriest Patriots in the colonies.

Sure, the prolific public speaking abilities of anyone with the surname Adams, including future 2nd President John, his son who took Quincy as a middle name, and cousin Sam of beermaking fame, are well known. However, there was one local character who dominated the oration forum, shouting from any perch, to anyone who would listen.

John Otis. His speeches were legendary for both their vigor and duration. All focused towards one specific target. The infidel British oppressors.

Otis attended Harvard starting at age 14, earning his degree in law, and quickly established a reputation as an eloquent defense attorney. A career lawyer, achieving the lofty post of Massachusetts’ advocate general, Mr. Otis was wise, and knew how to engage a crowd.

Soon, as revolutionary inklings bubbled to the surface, he took his talents from the courtroom to the courtyard.

Otis had plenty to rant about: the monarchy king in England, the abhorrent tax policies being levied, a failed parliamentary structure overseas making uniformed decisions. He had an uncanny ability to whip the public in a frenzy, through a spirited combination of voice inflections, hand gestures, and compelling content.

He made his mark with marathon 5-hour session at the Boston town hall in 1761, breaking down the Writs of Assistance, a set of sweeping warrants which allowed British customs officers to execute all manner of illegal searches and seizures.

John Otis’s coupe de gras came in 1765, this time as part of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. His target for this rant was the Stamp Act, a bill passed by British Parliament, which enacted a tax on nearly every document printed in the New World colonies.

The famous sentiment of “no taxation without representation” stemmed from this episode, as Otis and other Patriot orators, rose up against a governing body across the pond inflicting its will on a populace who had no control over the legislators being put in power.

Unfortunately, this crazy character died before the fruits of his labor were fully realized. This fire-tongued lecturer, often described as “emblazed with passion” while at the podium, passed away ahead of his time in 1772, ironically from being struck by lightning. At least his legacy of outspoken opposition lives on through the freedoms built into the Bill of Rights.

This novel document was ordered as it is for a reason.

Aside from the first two tenants, which didn’t pass the required state screening process. These elements seemed important to the fundamental framers, but didn’t resonate with everyone within the broader legislative complex.
Thus, the original 3rd clause became the 1st, which is now written into perpetuity.

“. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .”

This text selection from the 1st Amendment essentially describes the soapbox. It allows a citizen to openly speak their mind on any topic in a public forum where a large group their peers have gathered to listen.

The individuals who drafted the Bill of Rights, along with the other transformational documents which created the United States governance structure, chose their words carefully. The language is terse yet explicit, simple yet profound. There couldn’t be any chance for misinterpretation or confusion about what was being established, and why.

The other original opportunity related to soapbox soliciting of one’s colleagues is the lesser-known 7th Amendment, which guarantees a jury trial for common law disputes. Much care is given in the Bill of Rights to criminal trials, but this is the only discussion of civil suits. There was a clear emphasis on everyday person’s ability to be represented in an official manner, after decades of the violent oppression by British bullies.

The original stated amount which required such peer judgement, “. . . the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars . . .”, is a pittance these days. However, this inflation adjusted amount from 1791 would be over $700 greenbacks now, a decent sum worth fighting over for a poor household.

Rather than having neighbors shouting in the streets, and potentially even coming to blows, a curated legal process was established. Yet, even in today’s society, some folks forget that we’re all citizens of the same nation, and thus should act with some semblance of civility.

One of the key requirements for becoming an elected and effective representative in the early years of the United States government was the ability to execute a compelling speech. These verbal dictations were often verbose, sophisticated, and well researched.

Such practices led to the development of the filibuster in legislative halls, a strategic stall tactic still used today. And lengthy, eloquently crafted, options by Supreme Court justices, providing their thoughts from both the principle majority and dissenting minority standpoints.

Political communiques to the public have certainly changed substantially since those early days. The modern mode of government information distribution is severely lacking in both content and passion: official online text bulletins, predictable live interview questions, random social media tweets, fully scripted press conferences.

There was a specific recent era in American history defined by brilliant orators. The volatile period of civil disobedience which occurred throughout the 1960’s.

Passionate provocations came not just from lofty, respected politicians, like Ike and LBJ, but also brave, influential individuals, like Medgar Evers and Malcolm X. With television coming into vogue, and radio ubiquitous in every home and car, this epoch was primed for widespread dissemination of knowledge.

A few extremely iconic speeches, both occurring in Washington, DC, just a few years apart, were fundamental, capturing the spirit of America at the time, and significantly shaped the path of this nation since the day these profound words were uttered.

Positioned in front of a dark wood podium, from which many microphones protrude, with an array of seated dignitaries in dark suits behind, and a white column railing edging the balcony in front.

On January 20th, 1961, at the East Portico of the Capital Building, newly elected U.S. President John F. Kennedy made his formal introduction to the American citizenry, with the commentary broadcasted to a worldwide audience, utilizing the best audio-visual technology of the time. A simple and short piece of carefully drafted oration, President Kennedy drew upon the experience of the Founding Fathers, using terms like “revolutionary beliefs”, “colonial control”, “iron tyranny”, and “free governments” to incite the American populous into action and alignment.

Standing on a short flight of marble steps, looking out over a massive crowd, which rings a square pool of placid water, onto which the tall statue at the far end of the grounds is reflected.

On August 28th, 1963, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King Jr. unleashed his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech to an amassed throng of over 250k civil rights supporters. During this powerful delivery, Dr. King provided commentary on the abolition of slavery, as written into governmental law by the 13th Amendment, and directly referenced the U.S. Constitution and the rights therein granted as an “unfulfilled promise”.

Both these influential messages relied on the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly provided by the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Another core concept of the 1st Amendment is freedom of religion. This allowance has been the source of numerous litigations, some rising all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The initial, and still debatably most notable, case of relevance to reach this pinnacle judicial body is Everson vs. Board of Education in 1947. The rendered ruling cemented a broad scope of 1st Amendment freedoms, while simultaneously reinforcing the Bill of Rights doctrine as an overarching national governance structure.

The subject of the case itself was seemingly innocuous. A New Jersey taxpayer was upset with his state for providing public transportation reimbursement to students attending a private Catholic high school. His lawyers cited directly from the Bill of Rights as part of their legal strategy.

“. . . no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

Despite the split 5-4 decision in favor of plaintiff Everson, both the majority and dissenting opinion statements in this case referenced the now famous “wall of separation between church and state”. This was a momentous, precedent-setting, legal result.

Expanding well beyond religion, individual states’ judicial actions regarding fundamental human rights could now be brought to the highest court in the land; a governing body which was increasingly intent on protecting the espoused goals of the original document, and even more importantly, the spirit implied in those specific words.

Amazingly, it took 150 years, but the terse tenants of the amended Constitution were finally starting to become clear, and thus contentious. The past half century has seen much more Supreme Court activity regarding “unalienable rights”, as deemed by our Founding Fathers.

Even though the 7th Amendment is one of the more straightforward clauses, it was one of the first to make it to the Supreme Court for review. In 1812, the United States attempted to retry a civil case they formerly brought against Samuel Wonson Jr., for evading an embargo tax, due to the materialization of new evidence.

The independent legal process worked as it should, with the high court ruling that the U.S. government couldn’t bring this civil suit back to trial, citing English common law, which is the foundation for the American judicial system.

Activity in this area was fairly quiet for the next century and a half, before the common law civil suit topic made its way to the Supreme Court again. A 1973 ruling in Calgrove vs. Battin, approved a jury of just 6 members sufficient to meet one’s 7th Amendment obligation.

This was one of the few clauses to not be adopted by all states as part of the 14th Amendment Bill of Rights incorporation process. Despite the disparate laws regarding civil trials from state to state, the advent of Judge Judy on national cable TV has vaulted such small claims activity into the public consciousness.

The second half of the 20th century, along with most of the time since, has been personified by increasing expansion for personal freedoms. Anonymity. Diversity. Ethnicity. All these segments have seen their protections validated, in both the living and virtual realms.

Freedom of speech has become a complex concept in the wake of continued advancement in artificial intelligence deep fakes, ranging from voice, to pictures, to video.

The online realm of targeted marketing, pseudonymous posts, and social media is difficult for even the current Congress to grasp. It’s not surprising that the Bill of Rights from a few centuries ago, when information was shared via ponies rather than phones, doesn’t have a clear perspective on this topic.

But that’s the beauty of this famous document; it’s both specifically static and situationally stretchy. Provided those who hold the power to wield and shape legislative language are acting in the best interest of the citizenry at large.

In the near future, in may be necessary for the next wave of passionate Americans to hop on their virtual soapbox and call for action.

Cartridge Box (#2, #4):

Many a cartridge box was worn slung over the left shoulder by Patriots during their epic battle for freedom. A leather pouch, housing a wooden block, was positioned at a minuteman’s right hip, allowing rapid access to the ammunition stashed within.

Each vertically drilled hole housed a pre-rolled cartridge, composed of a tube of paper filled with a measured amount of loose gunpowder. The entire delicate package was very sensitive to moisture; the exterior would easily dissolve, and the interior would fail to light. Thus, the need for a sturdy, watertight container with slots to protect these projectile-enabling charges.

With this simple system, skilled operators could get off a shot with their flintlock rifle every 20 seconds, much faster than the traditional powder horn loading approach. Granted, the required paper tearing operation wasn’t great for a soldier’s teeth, as evidenced by Heath Ledger’s character in The Patriot.

The size, shape, materials, and construction method of cartridge boxes varied widely amongst impromptu revolutionaries, many of whom were farmers for their day job. Conveniently, in 1792, now an as independent nation, the Federal Militia Act mandated that all American militiamen carry a cartridge box which could hold at least 24 rounds.

The term Revolutionary War implies fighting amongst soldiers. Which was definitely the case.

1% of colonialists died in this messy conflict, another 1% were injured, and over 3% taken prisoner at some point throughout the campaign. It’s also important to note that 20% of the New World inhabitants remained Loyalists throughout the duration of the war, faithful to King George, and the English monarchy system.

Thus, several Bill of Rights inclusions are directly tied to military activity and personal safety, as these were key issues when fighting the British.

The original Bill of Rights verbiage for the 2nd Amendment is completely clear. Simply stating “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms . . .”, with a capital “A”, this language is as unambiguous and profound as the day it was written using iron gal ink with a quill feather pen on treated sheepskin parchment.

As the 2nd listed clause, it’s clear this artillery ownership opportunity was important to the revolutionaries. Understandably, on the heels of bloody wartime victory against an opponent with significantly more military resources. Enabling every American citizen to arm and defend themselves would avoid such tyranny in the future.

The other original right which has relevance to the cartridge box is the 4th Amendment. This protection of personal property is incredibly broad, stating that citizens are “. . . secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”

Again, there were deep rooted experiential scars from the days of British imperialism which made this privacy and security so important that it needed to be put in writing, near the beginning of the momentous document.

Both these rights define the United States, while also differentiating it from nearly all other nations globally. This uniqueness has turned out to be both a blessing, and a curse.

Over the course of less than 40 years, spanning the turn of the 19th century, a trio of United States presidents were assassinated. The weapon used to commit all three of these heinous acts was, not surprisingly, a gun.

Assassinations of political leaders has occurred throughout recorded history, and inevitably well before. Typically, these transgressions were the result of traitorous mutiny, often by family members, or close confidants. A quick check of ruler changes amongst Egyptian pharaohs, Roman generals, or Medieval kings, is littered with such treachery. These murders were usually executed in a close, passionate manner, utilizing simple, covert instruments like a knife, poison, or a short length of rope.

However, with the invention of the pistol, followed by continued technological improvements in range, accuracy, and payload, these devices became truly lethal weapons, capable of killing with minimal extra planning or physical effort.

The same 2nd Amendment which protected ownership of guns, in whatever quantity a citizen desired and could afford, led to the loss of three American leaders over a very short period.

President Lincoln in 1865. President Garfield in 1881. President McKinley in 1901. All were assassinated by aggrieved political activists, who these influential men had never met or even heard of before the fateful encounters. It’s not surprising that the Secret Service was officially tasked with protecting the POTUS following the 1901 offing of McKinley.

The 4th Amendment, also meant as an explicit remedy to Redcoat raiding during the Revolutionary War, has proven even more relevant from a citizens’ rights standpoint. Protecting “unreasonable searches and seizures”, this is one of the most valuable safeguards for individuals against official intrusion.

Essentially, for law enforcement to examine personal property, they must have both probable cause that a crime has been committed, and a judge-issued warrant for the venue being investigated. This protocol is engrained into societal consciousness through its application on all manner of true crime television dramas.

The application of this policy has ebbed and flowed over time based on left and right leaning justices in power on the Supreme Court. The most consequential and consistent ruling from the highest chamber in the land on this topic is what’s dubbed the “exclusionary rule”.

The foundation of this important legal terminology stems from Weeks vs. United States in 1914. As with many of these high-profile Supreme Court decisions, this case pitted a poor commoner against the full might of the national government. Exactly the type of unfair circumstance that the Bill of Rights was established for.

In this instance, federal agents entered the personal residence of Fremont Weeks in Kansas City, MO, using a hidden key on his stoop, then searched the entire home without a warrant, removing important bills, letters, and other documents from the scene. This material was then used as evidence in court to convict Mr. Weeks of illegally selling lottery tickets via the U.S. mail.

This sketchy law enforcement activity is just the type of overreaching behavior the 4th Amendment was put in place to limit. At least according to the 1914 Supreme Court judges, who ruled in favor of Weeks that the evidence was illegally obtained. Lacking the probable cause to get a search warrant prior to entering, the exclusionary rule was now clearly established.

This principle was further reenforced via Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961, a very similar case, though the defendant in this case was a middle-aged African American woman who was home during the search, and the offenders were state police officers. Since this confirmation case, not much has changed with regards to the private home intrusion in the past 60 plus years.

However, there have been several rulings brought forth regarding public is as opposed to private spaces, like retail shops, office buildings, and school facilities. This is a much thornier topic, as there are expectations of community safety which need to be considered in these shared spots, thereby giving law enforcement a broader operational scope.

Everyone, not just in this country, but globally, is aware of the right for U.S. citizens to bear arms. This is a unique privilege, which puts America at the top of the list with regards to weapons owned per capita, tallying over one gun for every legal person in the populous, regardless of age.

Via Supreme Court rulings in 1876, 1939, and 2008, the ability for the average adult to possess and operate firearms has been continuously defended, without providing any more clarity on situational context or equipment type.

The right to bear arms topic would not be complete without a discussion on mass shootings. The United States of America is again a global outlier, in terms of both firepower per person in society, and the propensity for those same citizens to inflict harm with such weapons on their countryfolk. Not exactly desirable positioning on the world stage.

Interestingly, the topic of gun control has actually waned within societal consciousness in recent years, with online bantering efforts focused on abortion and aging, climate change and civil rights, impeachment and inflation. That doesn’t mean the lobbyists on both sides aren’t hard at work.

There’s a substantial difference between trying to bag a mule deer for jerky creation from a tree stand with a muzzleloader, and arbitrarily opening fire on innocent fellow humans at a bodega with an automatic rifle.

The 27 words which comprise the 2nd Amendment weren’t clear on this delicate line. Then again, AK-47 assault rifles didn’t exist in 1776. If they did, the Revolutionary War would have been even bloodier, with potentially a different outcome. And ammo would have come on linked metal clips, as opposed to in wooden cartridge boxes.

It’s interesting to note that the verbiage of the 4th Amendment does not explicitly provide the right to privacy, and this term is not used anywhere in the Bill of Rights. However, judicial rulings at various levels of the courts have continued to expand the search and seizure definition to provide confidentiality to citizens in most scenarios.

In future years, it will be interesting to see if this personal protection extends beyond a physical home of 4 sturdy walls, to the flimsy borders of the interwebs. Arguably, much more personal information is contained in this digital space, and much more contraband, including artillery and ammo, are trafficked across such virtual platforms.

Privacy and protection are about to engage in an even more delicate dance than they already have been. Everyone likes a good tango.

Ballot Box (#9, #10):

The voting process is a fundamental tenant of democracy, not just in the United States, but within republics around the world where citizens are at least tangentially empowered to dictate governmental policy. Granted, there’s no shortage of historical examples where the will of the people has been suppressed or subjugated by those in power.

In England, and by extension, their colonies, originally voting was done through verbal outcry in a public setting. This format was by no means an anonymous process. It took a brave soul indeed to deviate from their boisterous peers on a controversial candidate or topic. Physical coercion and stealthy bribes were common in this early voting era.

The incorporation of a secret ballot, with handwritten pieces of paper folded and dropped through a thin slot in a locked wooden container, proved to be a much more formal process, that was much less subject to corruption.

The term “ballot” stems from the Italian root “ballotto”, which translates directly to “ball”. Which make sense, as wooden spheres, painted black and white, where used for binary voting operations at gentlemen’s clubs throughout Italy starting in the mid-16th century. By dropping the solid balls into a hollow box, the auditory noise confirmed a tally had been cast, but protected the anonymity of each person’s choice.

The concept of democratic voting by citizens dates back much further than the ballot box system. In 6th century BCE, the ancient Greeks developed what is thought to be the earliest form of self-governance, by writing individual names on broken pieces of clay pottery.

Amusingly, this negative election approach allowed farmers to identify officials who they wanted to be exiled from power for the next decade. If any candidate received above a set threshold number of strikes, that individual was removed from their leadership role. This unique system was highly motivating for politicians to keep their constituents happy, but would never fly in America’s current extremely polarized landscape.

The concept of democratic representation was very important to our Founding Fathers. They saw from experience that the monarchy system in Britain during the Revolutionary War period was invasive and inflexible.

The French, who creators of the early United States governance structure drew deeply from, pioneered the now normal concept of approval elections, where the candidate with most votes wins, in the Venetian court system during the 13th century. Also, in 1795, Napoleon initiated a mandated secret ballot for all public elections. Both these techniques are core elements of American democracy.

When the Bill of Rights was written, only white males over the age of 21 were eligible to vote, as was the case in essentially every self-governing republic worldwide at that time. It would take a while for this gaff to get rectified, allowing America to have a truly democratic system with all constituents of legal age able to cast their vote.

The 15th Amendment opened the elections to all men, regardless of race. The 19th Amendment granted women’s suffrage. The 26th Amendment dropped the voting age from 21 to 18 years. All these changes demonstrate the ability of the United States Constitution to change and adapt with the times, based on the will of its citizens. Granted, such adjustments could have occurred much sooner, with the benefit of hindsight.

Ironically, the finalized Bill of Rights is composed of Amendments 3 – 12 from the consolidated draft sent to the states for ratification.

The originally proposed first clause in the Bill of Rights never achieved the necessary votes to pass. This article tried to define House of Representatives apportionment based on population. This rule was just one swing state away from ratification twice around the end of the 18th century.

Over time, population growth through the incorporation of new territories obsoleted the originally proposed ranges. Meanwhile, the Reapportionment Act of 1929 by Congress fixed the House at 435 members, based on decadal census values, making this preliminary voter representation method obsolete.

More successful, albeit over two centuries later, the planned 2nd Amendment, related to government representatives not being able to legislate regarding their own pay, was finally ratified in May of 1992, becoming the official 27th Amendment.

Unfortunately, in this modern era of political corruption and rampant lobbyists, this rule does little to curb remunerations in Washington, or force elected officials to act in the best interest of their constituency.

While states weren’t excited about the federal government’s representative ratios and remuneration, they were quick to take back as much power as possible from this newly created principal legislative body.

The last two amendments in the Bill of Rights are closely linked, and essential to aligning the disparate 13 colonies which formed the initial union that created the United States. Each individual state, county, and town, wanted to be able to execute their own governance. Fledgling America was too vast, and its inhabitants too varied, for a single overarching entity to know what would be best for the masses.

Terminology “retained by the people” and “reserved by the States”, in Amendments 9 and 10 respectively, is meant to explicitly communicate the narrow band of governance which the Federals were claiming. This compromise was the only way to get the Bill of Rights officially ratified.

There have been numerous voting snafus throughout history, ranging from local backwoods hamlet races to determining the highest post in the land.

It didn’t take long for the democratic process put in place by our Founding Fathers to get thoroughly tested. In 1800, during just the 4th national presidential election, the first tie occurred, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, each procuring 73 of the 276 total electoral votes available from the states’ collective of representatives at this time.

The delegation format was different back in this early era; electors placed votes for any two candidates, providing no distinction on preference, with the highest two vote getters earning the pair of vaulted Executive branch posts.

This tied tally was clearly a strategy failure, as both Jefferson and Burr were members of the same Democratic-Republican party, the dominant political entity at the time.

To resolve this draw, the vote went to the House of Representatives to decide, an occurrence which has only happened one time in U.S. politics since. In this chamber, Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first and still serving Treasury Secretary at the time, rallied his Federalist colleagues, the second most popular party, in support of Thomas Jefferson, who he considered the lesser of two evils from a leadership standpoint.

As Broadway aficionados know, this contentious riff planted the seeds for a lifelong hatred between Burr and Hamilton, which led to the latter being killed in a duel just 3 years later, while Aaron Burr was still the acting Vice President.

Times have certainly changed with regards to legal shooting in the streets, though ill-advised illicit acts continue to permeate even the highest ranks of the United States government complex.

The confusion created by the 1800 presidential election led to one of the first Constitutional amendments after the inaugural changes through the Bill of Rights. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, decreed that Electoral College participants specify both a selection for POTUS and VP. This procedural change essentially kicked off the era of candidates running as an explicit pair, on both the campaign trial and the ballot.

One recent national polling session is so infamous that it has all sorts of names and memes associated with the event. The presidential election at the turn of the millennium, pitting George W. Bush against Al Gore, left society with a term that will live in infamy.

“Hanging chads”, predictably in Florida, a highly populated, and therefore important, state, based on the Electoral College format. Carrying 25 critical tallies, with Gore at 266, and Bush Jr. at 246, the result of this farthest southeast region would dictate the outcome.

It took over 5 weeks for the comedic circus to play out. All manner of accusations were thrown out by both sides, including confusing ballots, miscounted votes, and unidentified citizens. These distractions were a drastic departure from the original democratic intent which the colonials sought to solidify through a series of brutal battles with the British.

In an incredibly rare occurrence, the Supreme Court ended up having to rule on the result of a U.S. presidential election. Their justification for stopping the endless recounts, ardently requested by both parties, was simple, and democratic to the core.

“. . . all votes must be treated equally . . . “

A fundamental premise of the self-governing process was still alive, hanging chads, homeless supporters, and hostile attitudes be damned. This is a nation governed by the people. Every single one of them.

In the final tally, George W. Bush won Florida by just 537 discrete votes, representing a margin of victory in the state below 0.01%. No wonder there were so many mandated recounts. This outcome is a testament to the fact that every ballot counts, at least in swing states, despite any preordained or prepublicized outcomes.

The 2000 election was the first time in over a century where the candidate who won the popular vote didn’t earn the Presidential post. This seems to be a trend in recent election cycles, with the same phenomenon occurring during Trump vs. Clinton in 2106. This discrepancy stems from the way in which Elector votes are allocated based on population.

The constitutional abomination that is the Electoral College deserves another full post. As it turns out, the Jefferson, Adams, and company didn’t get everything perfectly right when creating a novel form of democracy from scratch.

There was one authority element which became a continual point of contention for the fledgling democracy. An equitable balance of power across the many competing levels of governance, from countryfolk to countrywide.

At first blush, the final approved version of the 10th Amendment looks like a failure of the Founding Fathers to think on a grandiose scope, potentially leaving the entire aligned system they aimed to create lacking and prone to collapse. Allowing any state to make any adjustment to the bureaucratic process at any time, as they deemed fit, seemed quite a risky proposition, highly prone to deterioration.

There was a reason for this seeming concession clause which terminated the Bill of Rights. Political posturing between the ardent federalists and their opposing state-centric politicians was a delicate one. However, through the selected verbiage complete autonomy is not “expressly” provided, a specific term which many during the Constitutional deliberations wanted included.

The 10th Amendment was as explicit nod to the Anti-Federalists. However, starting with United States vs. Darby Lumber Co. in 1941, the Supreme Court has ruled that power of the state is generally inferior to that of the national overlords.

There are many areas where legislative tact differs between the state and federal levels. One of the more relevant recent examples in with regards to marijuana legalization. Weed is currently permitted for recreational use in 23 states, and allowed for medical means in another 15 members of the union. Despite this majority acceptance across the country, the U.S. government continues to treat this drug as a Schedule I controlled substance, with harsh penalties for individuals partaking in any part of the complex supply chain.

The misalignment between law enforcement bodies at various levels makes it hard for large companies to provide support to the industry, in the form of limited bank loan options and hindered highway transport distribution.

As marijuana was legalized at each individual state level through citizens’ passage of specific ballot measures, which conveniently aligned with bureaucratic tax coffer incentives, it’s likely that this drug will be approved on the national level at some point in the future.

Provide that’s the chosen path willed by a majority cohort of voters. That’s how the democratic process works.

Executing a national election in an efficient manner, on a single day, is no small feat. Especially an operation that must be completely impartial, honest, and accurate. The logistical coordination to enable casting and counting of tallies takes a huge quantity of human laborers, ranging from generous volunteers to government officials.

Modern times have continued the demonstrate the importance of a fair and honest polling, and how screwed up this seemingly simple process can get. The fact that a former president is now being charged with election tampering and disinformation is a testament to how absurdly polarized voting has become on the national stage. While the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could never have predicted this recent absurd sequence of modern events, the democratic republic they founded almost 2 and a half centuries ago still stands.

In fact, the United States has grown geographically larger, more populous, and economically successful, beyond any dreams which even the most confident Constitutional framer could have envisioned.

The land mass of the country has expanded by almost 10X; what started as a thin line of Atlantic coastal states now extends all the way to the Pacific Ocean. U.S. population has increased 100-fold, from under 3 million brave souls living in the original 13 colonies, to over 300 million people spread across the vast expanse of America. Most impressive, nominal GDP per capita has multiplied another order of magnitude, by nearly 1000 times, over the past 200-plus years that this great nation has existed.

The United States is now the undisputed economic and military leader worldwide. And yet the basic tenants of governance put in place continue to work, with the help of a few key legislative tweaks, through the passage of additional amendments over time. All driven by the societal preferences of citizens, which shape the politicians they choose to represent them.

It’s amazing that there haven’t been more advancements to the voting process, from a technology standpoint. Essentially every element of modern-day functionality now occurs online. How are we still required to go poll in person, at a specific day and time, using machinery which hasn’t been updated for a generation?

Despite a big push towards electronic voting during the 2000’s, an era when computers and the internet were changing every facet of life, many developed nations worldwide scrapped these programs within a few years, citing issues with identity verification and digital security.

Reasonable concerns. However, with a majority of global banking, retail commerce, and social communication, being conducted through online means, it seems something as simple as an election polling portal could be set up with relative ease, enlisting a few skilled IT specialists.

There is one country at the forefront of election innovation. The Eastern European nation of Estonia. This forward-thinking republic has been allowing citizens to cast their votes over the internet for national contests since 2007. In the 2019 parliamentary elections, 44% of Estonians submitted their political preferences online. The Estonian government issues personalized electronic ID cards to verify digital identity, and cites reduced election execution cost and more equitable voter opportunity as the main benefits of their internet-based polling system.

The transition to online, or at least some form of electronic system, voting seems inevitable in the United States someday. As it did during the hanging chad era. Yet, minimal progress has been made. If we can execute essentially all elements of our daily life in the digital realm, internet security protocols seem robust enough to perform a simple count without getting hacked and inundated with fake tallies. Maybe some day in the future we’ll be interacting with ballot bots instead of ballot boxes.

Then there’s the issue of the Electoral College, an oversight entity which just complicates what should be a simple and straightforward process. Every citizen allotted one vote, with should carry the same weight in deciding the final outcome as any of their peers. While novel and fair in many ways, the United States democratic process is still a work in progress.

Jury Box (#5, #6):

Robust rule of law is what differentiates the United States, and most developed, democratic nations from other downtrodden, draconian countries worldwide. A key element of a fair and impartial judicial process is enlisting a jury of one’s peers to make a determination on guilt or innocence.

Jury box is another term with very literal word origins. Back in medieval times, potential jurors and pending witnesses were confined to an actual secure wooden boxed enclosure when not actively involved in the trial, an approach meant to prevent their minds from being influenced by the ongoing proceedings.

In modern courtrooms, the jury box is typically a raised perch, usually located along one side wall, with several rows of seats. This space is used all the way from the initial panel selection process to handing down of the final verdict by the foreperson.

The positioning and format of the jury box in the broader space offers up many important benefits: a consolidated point for lawyers and the judge to communicate information, secluded protection for this panel from the commoners, a privileged spot to hear witnesses and review evidence.

There are no specific rules regarding the design and layout of a jury box. Typical movie depictions, with multiple rows of dark wood chairs inhabited by a diverse range of citizens, is generally accurate to real life.

What’s not common, but often included in dramatic films, is the need for jurors to fully separate themselves from society, through a magistrate’s sequestration order. This physical isolation occurs in only a very small percentage of modern criminal cases; usually ones with a defendant who’s so high profile that participants can’t go about their daily life without being exposed to manipulative media content regarding the case.

Interestingly, during a trial, jurors are generally asked to sit in the same seat every day. This helps the clerk, judge, and lawyers to identify that certain individuals are present, and engage with them directly. As a result, for a lengthy criminal hearing, it’s important to choose a chair in the jury box wisely on the first day of the proceedings.

Fair rule of law was another core tenant of the Founding Fathers. Courts were well established in England by the 18th century, and a simplified version of the British judicial system made its way across the pond. This structure, with corrupt magistrates and arbitrary rulings, was not a scheme that colonialists enjoyed, or wanted to let persist.

When setting up their theoretically optimal nation governance structure, the framers were measured and thoughtful, aware of the past, with an eye towards the future. Certain draconian legislative actions by the imperialist power across the Atlantic were especially impactful.

Most influential were the Coercive Acts passed by the British Parliament in the spring of 1774, as a response to the Boston Tea Party uprising by Patriots the previous December. In addition to mandating repayment for the 92k pounds of destroyed tea, these laws included several offensive elements which helped shape the Bill of Rights.

Sweeping enforcement powers awarded to English military governors. Forbidding locals from assembling at town hall meetings. Allowing British officials charged with crimes to escape back to England for their trial. Approval for foreign troops to stay in abandoned buildings and solicit food from the colonists.

All this government overreach in common citizens’ lives planted the seeds for the American Revolution, and shaped the documents which outlined the structure for this new independent republic. Especially with regards to describing appropriate criminal procedures.

The 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights establishes verbiage which still remains a key part of legal lexicon. “Due process of law”, “self-incrimination”, and “double jeopardy”, are all explicitly stated in this clause.

Likewise, the 6th Amendment provides additional clarity on the desired judicial framework which all Americans have the right to, in clear and simple text, which essentially summarizes the United States criminal court process to this day.

“. . . speedy and public trial . . . by an impartial jury . . . wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation . . . confronted with the witnesses against . . .”

Hence the need for a jury box, and a group of impartial residents to fill it.

The 6th Amendment also fleshes out details regarding the opportunity to have lawyer representation and provide witnesses which may help one’s defense. Many of these aspirational guarantees took decades to hammer out in actuality, through countless court cases, and numerous key judicial rulings.

The 14th Amendment, adopted on July 9th, 1868, often referred to as “incorporation”, explicitly applied the Bill of Rights freedoms to all member states, thereby limiting their ability to take way or hinder such personal rights, regardless of the local or regional political climate.

This unification resulted in a several Supreme Court cases, weighting the powers of state enforcement against the liberties granted to individuals. The 5th and 7th Amendments are the only two which were never officially incorporated by the entire Union, or brought to the Supreme Court for further clarification.

Still, aside from a few minor differences, the criminal court system operates very similarly across the United States, with any legal discrepancy that can’t be resolved locally progressing upwards toward federal resolution.

It’s ironic that this is the one Constitutional mandate which solicits forced participation. Citizens aren’t required to vote, many don’t own a gun, and the majority avoid airing their political views in public. However, involvement of every American the jury duty process is a staple of modern life.

It’s amazing to think an explicit rule need to state that the same person couldn’t be tried for the same crime twice. This clause’s inclusion provides insight into how corrupt the imposed British legal system was during the colonization era, not just in the Americas, but at their numerous imperialist outposts worldwide.

The theoretically improved judicial system established after the Revolutionary War victory was quickly put to the test. The military success of the Patriots over the Redcoats revealed many dissidents. There was one so infamous that his name became synonymous with deceit and betrayal in any form to this day. Benedict Arnold.

However, this undercover Loyalist was able to flee to England before he could be captured, and tried. If so, it’s likely the liberated individuals who formed the United States of America would have bent any boundaries to convict this traitor. Another reason why clear and fair judicial protocols needed to be put in place, regardless of emotional or political motives.

Every transgressor, no matter how vile, gets their day in court.

Another lesser-known protection of the 5th Amendment involves outlawing “private property being taken for public use, without just compensation.” This florid language of yore has been condensed down to a single term in modern parlance, one with a somewhat different meaning than Madison and Mason may have originally intended. “Eminent domain”.

The Supreme Court first broached the eminent domain topic way back in 1876 in Kohl vs. United States. Mary Kohl, a successful businesswoman in Cincinnati, OH, challenged the establishment’s right to condemn her land, a prime plot in downtown, on which the U.S. government wanted to erect a complex of official buildings, including a mint depository, IRS bureau, post office, and ironically, a courthouse.

The tribunal bench, under the guidance of Chief Justice William Strong, sided with the federal development plan, stating this construction project was an essential public service, and just compensation had been provided for the block. Earning a payment of $750k for the site, a substantial sum in the late 19th century, Mrs. Kohl couldn’t have been too perturbed.

This finding was confirmed a few decades later, in a similar case, where Congress desired to acquire land at the Gettysburg Battlefield for historic landmark creation, much of which was owned by a local railroad company. Again, deeming an ample acquisition price was provided to the owner, such property condemnation proved allowable, as it enabled a societally beneficial project.

Over time, the nuances of what constitutes an actual public good, and what is the true fair value for a specific plot, have been continually revisited.

Eminent domain has been used throughout American history to enable all manner of government-led development programs: highways, buildings, parks, utilities, and fortifications.

With a generally fixed land mass for the country, and a continually growing, albeit at a slower rate, population, there are bound to be increasing clashes between private landowners and public infrastructure needs required to support the greater good.

Shifts in the primary mode of product shipment, from boats, to railroads, to trucks, to planes, each requiring different transport routes and logistics facilities, highlight this necessary evolution.

Again, while the Constitutional drafters had no idea how much the country and its citizenry would expand, and how rapidly technology would progress, the basic tenants put in place deftly balance the immense power of U.S. federal system with the basic rights of each average American citizen.

Three significant events in the 20th century were associated with aggressive land acquisition for new national programs: the New Deal, World War II, and Federal Aid Highway Act. During these programs, huge swaths of acreage were identified, condemned, and repurposed, for farming irrigation, munitions storage, and multi-lane thoroughfares, respectively.

Clearly important projects, which were meant to stimulate the economy, and employ workers. However, much of the required land was taken from private owners. Understandably, these periods saw a flurry of judicial proceedings with regards to 5th Amendment rights, but no major changes to the established policy framework.

This is one of the rare cases where the might of the national collective has consistently taken precedent over the rights of individual entities. And not without some combative interactions along the way.

Before getting too worked up, it’s important to note that some of the most famous and influential national parks, including Everglades, Great Smoky Mountains, Shenandoah, Valles Caldera, and Redwood, all used condemnation to procure and protect these natural treasures. In addition, the real estate for countless urban park greenways in dense concrete jungle metropoles across America were only possible through eminent domain acquisition means.

On the individual entity side, one of the most famous enforcements of the 5th Amendment is the Miranda rights ruling for arrested, but not yet charged, criminals. This saying is now engrained in the cultural contentiousness, as a result of numerous police shows on TV, covering both fact and fiction.

The actual Supreme Court case, apply titled Miranda vs. Arizona, heard in 1966, played out exactly as anticipated. A poor laborer from Phoenix was coerced into an admission of guilt, with no lawyers present. This wasn’t an uncommon tactic used by law enforcement at the time, but strategic lawyering all the way up to the highest court in the land, put this term into modern legal lexicon.

Now, any arrested person has the right to remain silent, be appointed a lawyer, who can observe the questioning, and that anything said under these structured conditions can be used in court. Most importantly, police must state these rights upon initial contact with a suspect, and refrain from any interaction until a lawyer is present, or the accused actively waves their protections. This last subtle point has been the topic of numerous judicial explorations since the original Miranda verdict.

Since this seminal 1966 ruling, the Supreme Court has revisited and reclarified this stance over 30 times, with 12 of these occurring in the 1980’s alone, an era when many elements of acceptable law enforcement procedure were evolving significantly. Though some of the original Miranda protocols have been lessened slightly, in specific situations, the fundamental doctrine continues to persist.

While seemingly well-defined at this point, over half a century later, Miranda-related cases are still bubbling up the judicial hierarchy. Just in 2022, a new Miranda topic made its way all the way to the Supreme Court.

This case combined a Section 1983 claim, used to sue a government official for a civil rights violation, with a potential breach of Miranda protocols. As the layers of legal precedent continue to get denser and more detailed, undoubtably additional such hybrid petitions will be submitted in the future. Interpretation of laws is constantly in flux, like waves on the ocean.

The complex relationship between law enforcement bureaus and the common citizens such institutions are meant to protect has been a point of significant contention throughout modern American history. The segregation riots of the 1960’s. The Los Angeles riots of the 1990’s. The BLM riots of the 2020’s.

While these engagements were disparate in time and location, there was one common theme. Race relations.

Many instances of accused criminals failing to get their Constitutionally guaranteed rights have occurred in cases where racial disparities were involved. Despite efforts to hire impartial and honorable police officers, there are inherent stereotypes and discriminatory undertones build into our societal fabric.

Plus, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bushel.

It’s amazing to think about what type of criminal activity mesmerizes society. Numerous infamous trials have played out over the past few several decades, involving serial killers, corporate wrongdoings, terrorist bombers, political lying, mob kingpins, and childhood abductions. But none have captured public perception more than one unique case.

A famous football player defendant. The paparazzi hordes of Los Angeles. A highway car chase scene. All manner of crazy evidence and witnesses. One of the most televised trials ever. It’s impressive that the pair of dueling lawyers was able to select an impartial, intelligent, and ignorant group of citizens to place in the jury box, in the wake of all this publicity.

But a jury of one’s peer is what the Bill of Rights guarantees, so that’s what every defendant in America gets, regardless of their crime or circumstance.

Inbox (#3, #8):

Disseminating information by mail has occurred in various formats throughout American history.

Paul Revere’s midnight ride, with a small saddlebag, and subsequent lamp lighting. The Pony Express, an impressively fast means of message transport, skilled horsemen navigating over rough terrain. Letters and packages, moved by rail across the expansive and expanding United States, throughout the 19th century. The USPS, an insolvent governmental operation, which continues to deliver mail to homes, even on Saturdays.

However, in this modern era, a much faster, more effective, mode of communication emerged as the 2nd millennium rolled over. Electronic mail, commonly known as email, which is now the mode by which most Americans interact via written words. Granted, texting is making strong inroads due to perpetual internet connectivity, and people being glued to their cellphones.

Inbox is one of those many technological terms which has entered the modern lexicon over the past few decades. Unlike Google, Tweet, and Uber, which are typically verbs, and reference specific company products that originated their chosen hi-tech space, this noun is more generic.

The word “in-box” was originally completely literal, referencing a physical place on a desk at work to house paper, like one of those bent metal wire racks. However, this system quickly moved into the digital realm, with improved computer word processing and online file sharing capabilities.

By 1984, the hyphen was removed, and the now omnipresent term adopted for important new messages received on countless internet-based personal computer platforms.

Email is now an essential component of daily life, used by most individuals to coordinate and communicate, both at work and at home. Research shows that the average American receives over 100 emails per day. Formerly a functional means of paperless messaging, this technological tsunami has become a black hole of spam. No wonder most inboxes fill up faster than they can be emptied.

The rugged souls who bravely colonized the Atlantic Coast three centuries ago definitely never saw this weird world of magic mail coming. If so, they may have acted more proactively to legislate against such creation and proliferation. Leaving more time to plow the fields, and feed the hogs.

The 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is one of the lesser-known declarations by the fledgling United States government. A concept that’s completely foreign in the context of modern American society. However, this topic was apparently important enough to make the top-10 list in terms of airing of grievances against the British imposition. Forced housing of military troops in private residences.

While this premise seems absurd today, it was a perpetual concern for Patriots in the 1770’s. Not surprisingly, this amendment has never been the subject of a Supreme Court ruling since being established. With not complainants, there’s not much to litigate.

It helps that all major global wars since the Revolution have been fought outside North America. With the exception of our own Civil conflict, a time when all laws, and sanity, went right out the window.

During that brutal engagement, soldiers on both sides weren’t too discerning with regards to raiding Northern foodstuffs, and destroying Southern plantations. Nobody wants to stay in a smokey barn devoid of provisions. Especially, when your enemy, who used to be your friend, may be lying just across the holler, rifle in hand. Apparently, in a broken union, the foundational sentiments which established the country become irrelevant.

Hopefully that ugly era in American history will never be replayed. And hopefully the protections provided by the 3rd Amendment will never be relevant to the average citizen. If U.S. military personnel are forced to inhabit private residences, that truly is a dystopian future.

As a result, the 3rd Amendment is the one out of the 10 original rights which seems the most dated. Or is it?

While U.S. Army soldiers aren’t wandering into American homes any time soon, there’s another cohort which is. The general public. Hosting military protectors is unacceptable. But having a few randoms stay for the weekend, provided they pay accordingly, is fine.

The ubiquitous connectivity of the internet has linked individuals who would have never met, or even known of each other’s existence, in the simpler days of our frontier forefathers. A long line of hungry militia walking down the dusty road past one’s small stone farmhouse in 1770 was pretty easy to spot. An approaching jet of rich retirees landing at the beach adjacent airport in 2020 is a little more discrete.

All these online booking platforms are enabled by electronic communication. With the click of a few buttons on their computer, would-be travelers can secure a room, a floor, or an entire house, in pretty much any town across the United States. With confirmation which includes check-in details promptly delivered to their inbox, once sufficient payment is confirmed.

Maybe one day a confluence of factors will morph an Airbnb stay into a Supreme Court 3rd Amendment ruling. That would be one weird vacation experience, but who knows in this interesting era. If you do find yourself in this unfortunate situation, there’s another Constitutional modification to keep in mind, especially if you already have a booked return plane flight to catch.

The 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the shortest of the document, logging in at just 16 words, as fully presented below.

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

Each term was carefully selected to provide a broad swatch of citizen’s rights in a single, terse sentence. This verbiage is so refined because it was essentially extracted verbatim from English law practices. Despite being bitter adversaries during the battle over the New World, the governance structures of the United States and United Kingdom are actually quite similar.

The key nouns: bail, fines, and punishments, are just as relevant and abhorred by Americans as they were a few centuries ago. Over time, these basic protections of the accused and incarcerated, usually most relevant to individuals deemed to be of ill repute within society, have been repeatedly challenged, and generally upheld.

Surprisingly, public killings were a part of the colonial justice system, most notably at the Salem witch trials in 1693, where convicted 19 individuals were hung in the public square. During the Revolutionary War, executions were common for individuals on both sides suspected of treasonous acts, often condemned to death without due process of law. In the Wild West, during the 2nd half of the 19th century, vigilante justice was common, with ambitious gunslingers tracking down wanted criminals under the guise of righteousness. Even into the early 1900’s, de facto capital punishment continued, most notably through lynching of negros in the Deep South, carried out by civilian oppressors.

Fortunately, the tenants laid out in the 8th Amendment to the Constitution provide explicit protection to prisoners, even those legally convicted of a crime. Granted, it took much longer for these rights to be felt by accosted black as opposed to privileged white members of society.

The first important test of the cruel and unusual punishment edict was litigated back in 1910, via Weems vs. United States. Interestingly, this case involved an American Coast Guard officer accused of falsifying documents while stationed in the Philippines, a U.S protectorate at the time. Though this activity occurred over a century ago, it’s easy to image the same scenario playing out on a computer today, with a few useful word processing apps, and some automated online messaging scripts.

Paul Weems was convicted of defrauding government records, and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor imprisonment, which per Philippine jail protocols, would result in him being shackled by the ankle and wrist for the entirety of his stay. His lawyers, arguing all the way up to the Supreme Court, were able to get this punishment overturned as cruel and unusual, considering the relatively minor scope of his wrongdoing, and the entire verdict against Weems was overturned.

This was a seminal judicial decision, which set the official protection against excessive punishment broad, strongly favoring the person in custody. Over time, as society has come more civilized, and nuanced, these individual criminal rights have honed and narrowed, while still staying generally favorable for the incarcerated.

The ultimate punishment for any prisoner is the taking of their life, no matter how poor the prison conditions may be. Capital punishment has come across the Supreme Court’s desk many times in the past 50 years. In the first few centuries of America’s existence, a decree of death was common, executed via hanging, shooting, or poisoning. Understandable, considering the bloody conflict, with unthinkable retribution, which allowed the original union of states to be formed.

However, times, and crimes, were changing. The two most important capital punishment cases occurred just 4 years apart in the 1970’s.

Furman vs. Georgia, heard in 1972, involved a burglar sentenced to death for murdering a woman during an attempted robbery. Furman’s African American nationality, leading to undo discrimination while in custody, and the accidental circumstances of the killing, were highlighted by the defense lawyers. The Supreme Court agreed, changing Furman’s sentence to life imprisonment, and staying his execution.

The impact of this high court judgment was immediately felt. Across the United States, all death row activities quickly ceased, causing substantial tumult within the American prison system. More acts in this play were inevitable.

Just 4 years later, Gregg vs. Georgia, a southern state which apparently had a multitude of violent criminals, made its way to the Supreme Court. As is often the case when the U.S. Judicial and Legislative branches clash, the group of 9 provided more clarity, reinstating capital punishment as constitutional if the jury is clear on the impact of their sentencing.

It’s also relevant to note that criminal execution is a topic which has broad variation between states, disparities stemming from the initial colonial union continue to present day. Currently, 27 states, almost exactly half the country, allow the death penalty in some situations, generally administered through lethal injection. The Anti-Federalists would be proud.

Bail is not relevant for most members of society, aside from some occasional gaudy billboard advertising. These roadside behemoths are a form of visual spam, well before the advent of cold calls and mass emails. It’s still common to see shiny hot pink, neon green, and canary yellow raised trucks, branded with bail office phone numbers, cruising around bustling urban environs across the country.

One of the highest bail asks ever occurred in 2005, in a case between the City of Columbus and Kim Freeman, the co-owner of a popular Ohio brothel.

This defendant in this case was clearly not a safety risk, at barely over 5 feet tall, and weighing not much more than 100 pounds, with no prior criminal record. However, the presiding judge set her bail amount at an absurd $1 billion dollars, without even having the courtesy to make a Dr. Evil reference. The stated justification for this incredibly lofty sum was the accused’s potential for flight, based on family connections in Asia.

This egregious bail was quickly overturned in higher courts, but didn’t absolve Ms. Freeman of her transgressions associated with enabling an illegal sex ring. Most of this illicit activity was facilitated via emailed invitations, images, and invoices, all which played prominently in the original trial.

For reference, there have been numerous high-profile criminals in recent years, with much lower bail amounts: Michael Jackson at $3 million, Bernie Madoff at $10 million, Jeffery Epstein at $100 million, and Sam Bankman Fried at $250 million.

It will be interesting to see if any bond values become contested by the Supreme Court in the future. Typically, rich arrestees, who are the most likely to incur a large security amount, especially if they are a flight risk, usually have access to funds well beyond the average citizen. So, can afford excellent lawyers.

There’s one element of email and phone communication which every American can agree needs to be dealt with. Electronic spam. These automated impositions have gotten increasingly invasive, and increasingly targeted.

Such mass distributed messages frequently clog an inbox, making it nearly impossible to differentiate between an important inquiry and an imbecilic intrusion. Between fake rental home deals, and unneeded bail bond companies, the 3rd and 8th Amendment have now clearly transitioned to the digital realm.

Much of our daily interaction, not just with the government, but with each other, is electronic based. Often, as evidenced by reviewing Supreme Court activity over time, the federal system is sluggish and selective when it comes to change. Maybe that’s why the Social Security and Treasury Direct websites are so staid and inert.

All sorts of political posturing arrives through online channels these days: live videos, written commentary, polling data, candidate messages. Inundated by this bombardment, it’s difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Electronic communication is essentially free, so party organizers are happy to send heaps of junk emails, at no added expense for the campaign finance team.

There are many benefits to our connected world. Any person with internet access can fire off a note, be it congratulatory or cursing, to their local congressman, with a few simple key stokes and mouse clicks. Granted there’s no guarantee a response will be received, or the content actually read. Even politicians have inbox spam folders.

The original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and even the numerous additional Amendments in more recent years, have little to say about technology topics. However, this is a field which is becoming increasingly relevant to societal activities.

The amount of information on the internet, whether actively chosen to make public, or nefariously obtained, has made it easy to research essentially any place, period, or person. The concept of privacy will certainly need to be examined and more clearly defined by the U.S. governmental complex in the near future.

Ironically, the same wealth of data which allows individuals to stalk their friends and family, can also be used to monitor the movements and motives of nearly anyone. Including prominent political figures, who are now constantly in the spotlight, whether they want to be or not.

As a result, one judicial body has come under increasing scrutiny and focus amongst common citizens. The Supreme Court. This final tribunal entity has changed over time, shaped by various personal motives, and political whims.

However, it’s not until recent decades that the participants on this honored bench have been known by name, and the target of substantial societal divide. Only time will tell if the magnified light under which these Justices operate, and the partisan leanings which define their nomination, will impede their ability to make thoughtful, impartial rulings.

Just like a teacher serving on the jury for a civil case in a small town, these important individuals who interpret and define the Constitution must be held to an incredibly high standard of integrity. The Bill of Rights demands it.

It’s actually quite impressive how few changes has been made to the governance structure in America since it earned freedom from the English oppressors across the Atlantic Ocean. The United States is a vast country, diverse in geography and citizenry. There will undoubtably be future tweaks needed to the systems which dictate established rule of law protocols.

However, before brashly making changes to the fundamental elements of the Constitution, it’s important to consider the core underpinnings of this document, and the reasons its drafters carefully put pen to paper. There could easily have been 100 original tenants, or even 1,000, but the 10 foundational edicts are still relevant, several centuries later.

There’s no way the Founding Fathers could have predicted the impressive current state of the country they created. However, their established governance structure was simple enough to remain flexible and functional to this day.

It’s valuable to recognize that there were no women, or minority individuals, in the cohort which drafted and signed the Bill of Rights. However, the format these white men fashioned was meant to escape a tyrannical regime, and replace it with a structure where the citizens of the new country could dictate their own governance.

To maintain and expand the protected rights for all individuals, it’s important for every American to participate in the democratic process, in the broadest sense of the word. Select your advocacy box of choice, then go forth boldly.

Library Box:

Full text for consolidated 12, and final 10, Bill of Rights amendments. [REF]
7 major causes of the Revolutionary War. [REF]
Summarizing the interesting and influential life of George Mason. [REF]
Historical facts related to the Bill of Rights. [REF]
Background on John Otis, one of the unknown characters of the American Revolution. [REF]
Ballot box background details. [REF]
8 most contentious U.S. presidential elections. [REF]
List of landmark Supreme Court cases adjudicating the Bill of Rights. [REF]
Detailed commentary on the economic progress of the United States, including demographic data. [REF]
Background on the original 4 boxes of liberty. [REF]
Detailed background of eminent domain cases in America. [REF]
Supreme Court rulings post Miranda; easy to navigate database of case brief materials. [REF]
Summarized impact of each Amendment over time. [REF]