visual representation of the 5th amendment

The Fifth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning

Protections for People Accused of Crimes

• Ph.D., Religion and Society, Edith Cowan University
• M.A., Humanities, California State University - Dominguez Hills
• B.A., Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as a provision of the Bill of Rights, enumerates several of the most important protections of persons accused of crimes under the American criminal justice system. These protections include:

• Protection from being prosecuted for crimes unless first legally indicted by a Grand Jury.
• Protection from “double jeopardy” — being prosecuted more than once for the same criminal act.
• Protection from “self-incrimination” — being forced to testify or provide evidence against one’s self.
• Protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law” or just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment, as part of the original 12 provisions of the Bill of Rights , was submitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789, and was ratified on December 15, 1791.

The complete text of the Fifth Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Indictment By a Grand Jury

Nobody can be forced to stand trial for a serious (“capital, or otherwise infamous”) crime, except in a military court or during declared wars, without having first been indicted — or formally charged — by a grand jury .

The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has never been interpreted by the courts as applying under the “ due process of law ” doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment , meaning that it applies only to felony charges filed in the federal courts . While several states have grand juries, defendants in state criminal courts do not have a Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury. 

Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that defendants, once acquitted of a certain charge, may not be tried again for the same offense at the same jurisdictional level. Defendants may be tried again if the previous trial ended in a mistrial or hung jury, if there is evidence of fraud in the previous trial, or if the charges are not precisely the same — for example, the Los Angeles police officers who were accused of beating Rodney King , after being acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal charges for the same offense.

Specifically, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to subsequent prosecution after acquittals, after convictions, after certain mistrials, and in cases of multiple charges included in the same Grand Jury indictment.

Self Incrimination

The best-known clause in the 5th Amendment (“No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself”) protects suspects from forced self-incrimination.

When suspects invoke their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as “pleading the Fifth.” While judges always instruct jurors that pleading the Fifth should never be taken as a sign or tacit admission of guilt, television courtroom dramas generally portray it as such.

Just because suspects have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination does not mean that they  know  about those rights. Police have often used, and sometimes still use, a suspect's ignorance regarding his or her own civil rights to build a case. This all changed with  Miranda v. Arizona  (1966), the  Supreme Court  case that created the statement officers are now required to issue upon arrest beginning with the words "You have the right to remain silent..."

Property Rights and the Takings Clause

The last clause of the Fifth Amendment, known as the Takings Clause, protects the peoples’ basic property rights by banning federal, state and local governments from taking privately owned property for public use under their rights of eminent domain without offering the owners “just compensation.”

However, the U.S. Supreme Court , through its controversial 2005 decision in the case of Kelo v. New London weakened the Takings Clause by ruling that cities could claim private property under eminent domain for purely economic, rather than public purposes, like schools, freeways or bridges.

Updated by Robert Longley

• The Bill of Rights
• The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution
• Bolling v. Sharpe: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• What Is Double Jeopardy? Legal Definition and Examples
• Criminal Justice and Your Constitutional Rights
• Double Jeopardy and the Supreme Court
• Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?
• What Are Individual Rights? Definition and Examples
• The 7 Most Important Eminent Domain Cases
• What Is a Grand Jury and How Does It Work?
• Due Process of Law in the US Constitution
• The Sixth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Massiah v. United States: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Fifth Amendment Supreme Court Cases
• Escobedo v. Illinois: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Where Did the Right to Privacy Come From?

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, constitution 101 resources, 5.5 activity guide: big ideas of the bill of rights.

This activity is part of  M odule 5: The Bill of Rights  from the  Constitution 101 Curriculum . 

In this activity, you will explore the big ideas for each of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Review the amendments in the Bill of Rights, then circle the amendment you were assigned. Highlight or underline important words in the text. List any words you have questions about, or that seem unclear.

Then, summarize your amendment with a statement of the big ideas and create a collage of images to visually represent the big ideas. Be prepared to share your big idea and visual representation with the class.  

To view the Bill of Rights, download the attached document, or view it on the National Constitution Center’s website here .

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Legislative Branch

Understanding Federalism

Each of the five activities in this lesson introduces a different aspect of federalism. Introducing Federalism explores everyday situations that demonstrate the influence of federalism. The Historic Roots of Federalism shows students how the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are grounded in federalism. Federalism in the Constitution explores federalism as described in Article I of the Constitution. Federalism in History uses historic legislation to illustrate how the relationship between the Federal government and the states has changed over time. Federalism in Everyday Life uses everyday experience to show the overlap among the different levels of government. The activities can be completed separately over the course of several classes.

Students will learn about federalism and its role in civic life by completing one or more of the activities.

Guiding Question

What is federalism, and how does this constitutional principle influence government and civic life in the United States?

6 Worksheets

Answer Keys

Recommended Grade Levels

Civics; U.S. Government

Time Required

Each activity requires approximately 30 minutes to complete. Activity 5 has two optional parts which can be done in class or as homework assignments.

Learning Activities

Activity 1: Introducing Federalism

• What is the definition of federalism? A system of government divided among local, state, and national responsibilities.
• Why is federalism an important civic concept to understand? People encounter and interact with different levels of government—local, state, and Federal—every day.
• Distribute Worksheet 1. Instruct each student to use the definitions for each term to fill out the remaining two columns. The column for "Visual Representation" should be completed with an illustration showing the level of government and what it presides over. (E.g., a representation of the Federal government presiding over the states.) Check the students' work using the Worksheet 1 Answer Key.
• Distribute Worksheet 2. Instruct each student to answer the questions, write the explanation called for, and fill out the diagram following the directions on the worksheet. Check the students' work using the Worksheet 2 Answer Key.

Activity 2: The Historic Roots of Federalism

• Federalism has not had one set definition throughout history, because the idea of the appropriate balance of authority among the local, state, and Federal governments has changed over time.
• Federalism is not specifically defined in the Constitution, but its meaning is suggested in how the national government is described.
• How is the role of the states different in the two preambles? Under the Articles of Confederation the states were partners in the union and had power over the action of the Federal government. The relationship of the states to the Federal government was not mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution.
• Does the difference in the role of the states suggest a change in the meaning of federalism? Federalism under the Articles of Confederation meant that all states had to agree to each action of the Federal government in order for the Federal government to act. The role of the states and their relationship is not spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Activity 3: Federalism in the Constitution

• Discuss the concept of enumerated powers (powers granted to the Federal government), denied powers, and reserved power in the Constitution.
• Distribute Worksheet 4. Instruct the students to read the excerpt from the Constitution, and label each power as either E for enumerated power, D for denied power, or R for reserved power. Check the students' work using the Worksheet 4 Answer Key.
• Conduct a class discussion on the following question to check the students' understanding: (A suggested answer is italicized following the question.)
• Which clause of Article I, Section 8 do you think has the greatest influence on the discussion of Federalism? The answers can vary, but the most solid case might be made for Article I, Section 8 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
• The Tenth Amendment does not list any specific powers. What does that mean? The Tenth Amendment broadly says that all powers not given to the national government are reserved for the states and the people. This leaves the meaning of reserved powers open to interpretation.
• In what ways might the Tenth Amendment influence the interpretation of the Enumerated Powers? The Tenth Amendment suggests that the states have undefined powers reserved to them. Determining the extent of the authority reserved to the states by this amendment has been a long-running debate in U.S. history.

Activity 4: Federalism in History

• Introduce the students to the idea that the balance of authority between the Federal government and the states has shifted at different times in American history.
• Explain how legislation can grant new authority or responsibility to Federal, state, or local government.
• Distribute Worksheets 5. This worksheet presents two famous acts of legislation that changed the balance of authority between the Federal government and the states during the 20th century. Each example invites an assessment of the balance of authority over a topic. Check the students' work using the Worksheet 5 Answer Key.

Activity 5: Federalism in Everyday Life

• Remind the students of how Worksheet 2 illustrated the overlap among the levels of government. Explain that, as a consequence, we often see examples in everyday life that demonstrate the overlapping authority of different levels of government.
• Distribute Worksheet 6 to the students. Completing this worksheet will illustrate how federalism is encountered every day, and how the responsibilities of the three levels of government are interconnected.

Optional Activity

• The optional activity printed on page two of Worksheet 6 invites the students to identify how they experience the constitutional concept of federalism in everyday life.
• Ask the students to present their experience of federalism to the class by making a PowerPoint, poster, or video.

Additional Resources

Did you like this lesson? Educators who used this lesson also viewed:

• Teaching Six Big Ideas in the Constitution - Students engage in a study of the U.S. Constitution and the significance of six big ideas contained in it: limited government; republicanism; checks and balances; federalism; separation of powers; and popular sovereignty.

Return to Lesson Plans

If you have problems viewing this page, please contact [email protected] .

Fifth Amendment :

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Standing by itself, the phrase “due process” would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that “due process of law” would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. “It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.” 1 Footnote Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276 (1856) . Webster had made the argument as counsel in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819) . See also Chief Justice Shaw’s opinion in Jones v. Robbins , 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 329 (1857) . All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to its protection, including corporations, 2 Footnote Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 719 (1879) . aliens, 3 Footnote Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) . and presumptively citizens seeking readmission to the United States, 4 Footnote United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 263 (1905) ; cf. Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, 273 U.S. 352 (1927) . but States as such are not so entitled. 5 Footnote South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 323–24 (1966) . It is effective in the District of Columbia 6 Footnote Wight v. Davidson, 181 U.S. 371, 384 (1901) . and in territories which are part of the United States, 7 Footnote Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 201 (1916) . but it does not apply of its own force to unincorporated territories. 8 Footnote Public Utility Comm’rs v. Ynchausti & Co., 251 U.S. 401, 406 (1920) . Nor does it reach enemy alien belligerents tried by military tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 9 Footnote Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) ; In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946) . Justices Rutledge and Murphy in the latter case argued that the Due Process Clause applies to every human being, including enemy belligerents.

Early in our judicial history, a number of jurists attempted to formulate a theory of natural rights—natural justice, which would limit the power of government, especially with regard to the property rights of persons. 10 Footnote Compare the remarks of Justices Chase and Iredell in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 388–89, 398–99 (1798) . State courts were the arenas in which this struggle was carried out prior to the Civil War. Opposing the “vested rights” theory of protection of property were jurists who argued first, that the written constitution was the supreme law of the State and that judicial review could look only to that document in scrutinizing legislation and not to the “unwritten law” of “natural rights,” and second, that the “police power” of government enabled legislatures to regulate the use and holding of property in the public interest, subject only to the specific prohibitions of the written constitution. The “vested rights” jurists thus found in the “law of the land” and the “due process” clauses of the state constitutions a restriction upon the substantive content of legislation, which prohibited, regardless of the matter of procedure, a certain kind or degree of exertion of legislative power altogether. 11 Footnote The full account is related in E. Corwin , Liberty Against Government ch. 3 (1948) . The pathbreaking decision of the era was Wynhamer v. The People , 13 N.Y. 378 (1856) . Thus, Chief Justice Taney was not innovating when, in the Dred Scott case, he pronounced, without elaboration, that one of the reasons that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional was that an act of Congress that deprived “a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.” 12 Footnote Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 450 (1857) . Following the war, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Due Process Clause, substantive due process interpretations were urged on the Supreme Court with regard to state legislation. First resisted, the arguments came in time to be accepted, and they imposed upon both federal and state legislation a firm judicial hand that was not to be removed until the crisis of the 1930s, and that today in non-economic legislation continues to be reasserted.

“It may prevent confusion, and relieve from repetition, if we point out that some of our cases arose under the provisions of the Fifth and others under those of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Although the language of those Amendments is the same, yet as they were engrafted upon the Constitution at different times and in widely different circumstances of our national life, it may be that questions may arise in which different constructions and applications of their provisions may be proper.” 13 Footnote French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324, 328 (1901) . The most obvious difference between the two Due Process Clauses is that the Fifth Amendment clause as it binds the Federal Government coexists with other express provisions in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing fair procedure and non-arbitrary action, such as jury trials, grand jury indictments, and nonexcessive bail and fines, as well as just compensation, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment clause as it binds the states has been held to contain implicitly not only the standards of fairness and justness found within the Fifth Amendment ’s clause but also to contain many guarantees that are expressly set out in the Bill of Rights. In that sense, the two clauses are not the same thing, but, insofar as they impose such implicit requirements of fair trials, fair hearings, and the like, which exist separately from, though they are informed by, express constitutional guarantees, the interpretation of the two clauses is substantially, if not wholly, the same. Save for areas in which the particularly national character of the Federal Government requires separate treatment, this book’s discussion of the meaning of due process is largely reserved for the section on the Fourteenth Amendment . Finally, some Fourteenth Amendment interpretations have been carried back to broaden interpretations of the Fifth Amendment ’s Due Process Clause, such as, for example, the development of equal protection standards as an aspect of Fifth Amendment due process.

Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment s can be broken down into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process, based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues, as discussed in detail below, include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel. Substantive due process, although also based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” is used to evaluate whether a law can be applied by states at all, regardless of the procedure followed. Substantive due process has generally dealt with specific subject areas, such as liberty of contract or privacy, and over time has alternately emphasized the importance of economic and noneconomic matters. In theory, the issues of procedural and substantive due process are closely related. In reality, substantive due process has had greater political import, as significant portions of a state legislature’s substantive jurisdiction can be restricted by its application.

Although the extent of the rights protected by substantive due process may be controversial, its theoretical basis is firmly established and forms the basis for much of modern constitutional case law. Passage of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) gave the federal courts the authority to intervene when a state threatened fundamental rights of its citizens, 14 Footnote The Privileges or Immunities Clause, more so than the Due Process Clause, appears at first glance to speak directly to the issue of state intrusions on substantive rights and privileges— “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .” See Akhil Reed Amar , The Bill of Rights 163–180 (1998) . As discussed earlier, however, the Court limited the effectiveness of that clause soon after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. See Privileges or Immunities, supra . Instead, the Due Process Clause, though selective incorporation, became the basis for the Court to recognize important substantive rights against the states. and one of the most important doctrines flowing from this is the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause. 15 Footnote See Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment , supra . Through the process of “selective incorporation,” most of the provisions of the first eight Amendments, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, are applied against the states as they are against the federal government. Though application of these rights against the states is no longer controversial, the incorporation of other substantive rights, as is discussed in detail below, has been.

• AI Generator

Sorry, your search returned zero results for “fifth_amendment_to_the_united_states_constitution”

Have you tried doing the following:

Check for spelling errors or typos

Clear search filter options

Use fewer keywords

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

15th Amendment

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 10, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The 15th Amendment, which sought to protect the voting rights of Black men after the Civil War, was adopted into the U.S. Constitution in 1870. Despite the amendment, within a few years numerous discriminatory practices were used to prevent Black citizens from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South. It wasn’t until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that legal barriers were outlawed at the state and local levels if they denied any Americans their right to vote under the 15th Amendment.

What Is the 15th Amendment?

The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Despite the amendment's passage, by the late 1870s dozens of discriminatory practices were used to prevent Black citizens from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South.

Reconstruction

In 1867, following the American Civil War and the abolishment of slavery , the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act over the veto of President Andrew Johnson . The act divided the South into five military districts and outlined how new governments based on universal suffrage for men were to be established.

With the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870, a politically mobilized Black community joined with white allies in the Southern states to elect the Republican Party to power, which brought about radical changes across the South. By late 1870, all the former Confederate states had been readmitted to the Union, and most were controlled by the Republican Party thanks to the support of Black voters.

In the same year, Hiram Rhodes Revels , a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi , became the first African American to sit in the U.S. Congress when he was elected to the U.S. Senate . Although Black Republicans never obtained political office in proportion to their overwhelming electoral majority, Revels and a dozen other Black men served in Congress during Reconstruction, more than 600 served in state legislatures and many more held local offices.

Did you know? One day after it was ratified, Thomas Mundy Peterson of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, became the first Black person to vote under the authority of the 15th Amendment.

Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests

By the late 1870s, the Southern Republican Party vanished with the end of Reconstruction, and Southern state governments effectively nullified both the 14th Amendment (passed in 1868, it guaranteed citizenship and all its privileges to Black Americans) and the 15th Amendment, effectively stripping Black citizens in the South of the right to vote.

In the ensuing decades, a range of discriminatory practices including poll taxes and literacy tests—along with Jim Crow laws, intimidation, threats and outright violence—were used to prevent Black men from exercising their right to vote.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 , signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, aimed to overcome all legal barriers at the state and local levels that denied Blacks their right to vote under the 15th Amendment.

The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered to vote and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections.

In 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court .

After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, state and local enforcement of the law was weak and often ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of Black citizens in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo.

Still, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave Black American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout.

The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. National Geographic . 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History. Library of Congress .

HISTORY Vault: Black History

Watch acclaimed Black History documentaries on HISTORY Vault.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Contact: ✉️ [email protected] ☎️ (803) 302-3545

List of the 27 amendments, resources related to “list of the 27 amendments”:.

• Overview of Bill of Rights
• When was the Bill of Rights ratified?
• Is the Bill of Rights part of the constitution?
• Free PDF of the Bill of Rights

What Is The Constitutional Amendment Process?

Table of Contents

The following is a list of the 27 constitutional amendments. Twenty-five of these constitutional amendments are currently active. The two amendments of the constitution that are inactive are the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).

You can also  download a PDF of the 27 Amendments  if you wish to.

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution

What are the first 10 amendments called?

The  first 10 of these amendments  are known as the Bill of Rights and relate to personal and individual rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791.

Over 11,000 additional constitutional amendments have been proposed, with approximately 200 proposed for the  amendment process  a year. For a proposed constitutional amendment to be passed is a very complicated process.

What Are the First 27 Amendments of the Constitution?

The 1st amendment.

The  1st Amendment  is about  Freedom of speech . The notion that the government will not interfere with the ability of the people, the press, or religious groups to express their views or to protest in favor of them.

It starts with:

Congress shall make no law…

The 2nd Amendment

The  2nd Amendment  is about the right to bear arms. In the modern world, the continued right to own firearms and protect property according to the law.

The 3rd Amendment

The  3rd Amendment  is a law stating that citizens do not have to house soldiers in wartime or peacetime if they do not consent to do so.

The 4th Amendment

The  4th Amendment  is about the right of the people of the United States to feel secure in their homes and possessions without fear of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This relates to modern law concerning the need for a warrant to search property.

The 5th Amendment

The  5th Amendment  is commonly known as the double jeopardy law. Those tried and acquitted for a crime cannot be tried again for that same crime. Also, the accused cannot be asked to be a witness against themselves.

The 6th Amendment

The  6th Amendment  is about the right of all citizens of the United States to a speedy and fair public trial. This also means an impartial jury and the right to a defense counsel and witnesses in their favor.

It also infers the concept of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty .

The 7th Amendment

The  7th Amendment  gives the right for any claimant to take a matter to court and trial by jury when the value in question exceeds $20.

The 8th Amendment

The  8th Amendment  is a ban on extreme punishments for crimes, focusing on those that are “cruel and unusual” and on excessive fines or bail.

The 9th Amendment

The  9th Amendment  clarifies that United States citizens have far more rights than those currently listed and that their absence doesn’t diminish their importance.

The 10th Amendment

The  10th Amendment  attempts to separate federal and state law, where the federal government only has the powers assigned to it via the United States Constitution. The states have power over everything else.

The 11th Amendment

The  11th Amendment is the notion that the right for citizens to sue a state only applies to residents in that state. In other words, Texans can’t sue the State of New Mexico. It was ratified on February 7, 1795 .

The 12th Amendment

The  12th Amendment  is a complex amendment that lays out all the laws for how Presidents and Vice Presidents progress through the nomination and election process. It goes into who is allowed to vote and qualified electors and delegates. Also, the  requirements for becoming president . It was ratified on June 15, 1804.

Get Smarter on US News, History, and the Constitution

Join the thousands of fellow patriots who rely on our 5-minute newsletter to stay informed on the key events and trends that shaped our nation's past and continue to shape its present.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The 13th Amendment

The  13th Amendment is about the abolition of slavery. The promise that slavery, or “involuntary servitude,” would exist no longer within the United States. The exception here is on the conviction of a crime. This amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 .

The 14th Amendment

The  14th Amendment is the assertion that all those born or naturalized within the United States are citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the promise that no state will enforce any law that will damage these privileges in any way. This is also known as the Equal Protection Clause and was ratified on July 9, 1868 .

The 15th Amendment

The  15th Amendment stipulates that any citizen of the United States has the right to vote, regardless of their race and color of their skin. This constitutional amendment also mentions those with a “previous condition of servitude,” which grants the right to former slaves. It was ratified on February 3, 1870 .

The 16th Amendment

The  16th Amendment is a law that allowed Congress to start collecting income tax, with the promise that this would not be based on the state’s population. It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

The 17th Amendment

The  17th Amendment  lays out the terms for  electing senators . This gave power to the people of the US to choose their representatives and laid out the terms of office. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified on April 8, 1913 .

The 18th Amendment

The  Eighteenth Amendment  is also known as the Prohibition Law. This prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of “intoxicating liquors.” This essentially meant a ban on alcohol and led to the  Prohibition Era of bootleg alcohol sales and consumption. The 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 but subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendment.

The 19th Amendment

The  19th Amendment is about the right for any citizen of the United States to vote, regardless of their biological sex. Essentially, this was the moment women joined male citizens and were granted the right to vote in the United States. This amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The 20th Amendment

The 21st amendment.

The  21st Amendment is the motion to repeal the 18th Amendment, the Prohibition Law, and allow for the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. It was ratified on December 5, 1933 due to the inability to enforce the law. Instead, individual states gained the right to police alcohol-related laws themselves.

The 22nd Amendment

The  22nd Amendment is the notion that no president should be eligible for election into office for more than two terms. Furthermore, anyone promoted to president for two years or more of a term cannot be elected for more than one additional term. The amendment was proposed in 1947, following FDR’s term from 1933 to 1945, and ratified on February 27, 1951.

The 23rd Amendment

The  23rd Amendment  ensures that Washington, D.C. had electors in the  Electoral College , but only as many as the state with the lowest number. This would ensure that voters there had better representation in future elections. The amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961.

The 24th Amendment

The 25th amendment, the 26th amendment, the 27th amendment, 27 amendments of the constitution.

The above are  27 amendments that have become part of the United States Constitution . There are approximately 10,000 amendments that have been rejected and never ratified.

When Was Each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution Ratified?

The ratification dates for each of the 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are as follows:

• First 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) – December 15, 1791
• 11th Amendment – February 7, 1795
• 12th Amendment – June 15, 1804
• 13th Amendment – December 6, 1865
• 14th Amendment – July 9, 1868
• 15th Amendment – February 3, 1870
• 16th Amendment – February 3, 1913
• 17th Amendment – April 8, 1913
• 18th Amendment – January 16, 1919
• 19th Amendment – August 18, 1920
• 20th Amendment – January 23, 1933
• 21st Amendment – December 5, 1933
• 22nd Amendment – February 27, 1951
• 23rd Amendment – March 29, 1961
• 24th Amendment – January 23, 1964
• 25th Amendment – February 10, 1967
• 26th Amendment – July 1, 1971
• 27th Amendment – May 7, 1992

Constitutional Amendments Quiz

If you would like to download a PDF with our quiz, then please go to:

Download the quiz PDF

Alternatively, you can take our online quiz here:

Constitutional Amendments

Edward savey, 96 responses.

Where in the Constitution does it give a right to impeach a President after he has left the office of President.

He was impeached on January 13, 2021 which was before he left office January 20,2021. The trial came after that, but he was constitutionally impeached twice.

Was constitutionally “Acquitted” both times which cancels out both impeachments

Impeachment is permanent. He may be acquitted by the Senate, but he is still Impeached. If you remember in the past, Bill Clinton was impeached, but then acquitted by the Senate. He is still to this day Impeached. The House of Representatives has sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

His impeachments were all based on lies!

It’s the same as if you are accused of a crime and found not guilty. Your not guilty, but records will always show you were accused, but found not guilty.

That is incorrect, the Impeachment has to be ratified or denied by the Senate before the Impeachment becomes Official. When the Senate votes against or denies the Impeachment by the House of Representatives, it essentially becomes null and void.

It doesn’t “cancel” the impeachments. An impeachment, which is a political process, is the equivalent to an indictment in the criminal process. Both merely mean that the responsible body, HOR or Grand Jury, found enough evidence in their opinion to warrant a trial. An indictment still remains on the record, as does an impeachment, even if the charged party is aquitted.

You can indict a piece of toast. Means nothing without consequences.

There’s no way he could try to run for president if he had been impeached. An impeachment is not just an accusation but also a trial.

No, an impeachment is simply as accusation. Even if the accusation fails it was still made.

No, it does not!

Yas!!! I dont understand why they like to think he was in fact Impeached, when he wasnt. He was acquitted both times. Therefore never impeached.

It did not pass so he was not taken out of office. They were all Democrats run hate. Just like they hate the Republicans they want to make us a one party system which is communism. The impeachment did not pass the congress. GEES

Carol: Can’t believe that anyone believes such nonsense. First, trump was impeached for attempting to blackmail Ukraine by withholding miliary aid attempting to block a House Investigaton. Then he was impeached for urging tourist to enter the Capitol with guns, stars and bars flags and urging for the hanging of the VP. Good Christians one and all. Every woman ought to have been outraged that trump bragged about grabbing women by their private parts because they like it. Sex with whores and porn stars is unacceptable, expect to ultra-right wing voters.

Another Dem stone thrower! Wow.

Really a one party system just more fancy definition of a dictatorship, but communist countries are dictatorships so your point still stands.

Trump was one of the best presidente América ever had.

He is somewhat arrogant, had absolutely 0% of any sort/kind of political background, a social media keyboard bully, rich RICH, uptight 1% and loved pornstars ######… BUT.!!! That man did an excellent job and upheld his duty of the united States president like a God damn trooper… Good job MR. President Trump…..!!!!

He did nothing as a President of the United States of America. He played golf for one fourth of the time being in the White House. He played like a little baby with our Nation’s Top Secret information. He played movie star as he met with commie leaders and murderers. He acted and still does about people whom he disliked or confronted him making sure those who did lives were destroyed by his actions. All that and a draft dodger. The poor little baby couldn’t even represent the Country in a uniform. What a coward.

your opinion not fact. hé did far more damagethan good.

LIE’S. He was not the best president America ever had, That honor should go to Barack Obama, The First Afro-Amercian Man to be president. and he did a VERY good job. Unlike old Donald ‘Rump’ who did nothing but lie, cheat, and bribe people into liking him!

Yeah, that shows in his current situation, he’s the prime candidate for prison because of his criminal behavior and mindset. He caused division among the people of this country and his ignorance brought about chaos and corruption and turned people into idiots and vile followers of white nationalist ideology which correlates with hate and white supremacy. His corruption is clear to be seen and witnessed by the world and so are his elite dedicated followers who are just as criminal as he is that’s why they follow a lunatic who was nothing more than a game show host. His fraudulent activities and his corruptness are finally exposing him for everything he is and everything he will be.

NO, he was only impeached by the House, not the Senate

For crimes unproven nearly 2 years later.

Acquitted two times

HE WAS NEVER CHARGED, SO HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED.

Being “charged” and being impeached are two entirely different things. It would be really helpful for you to take a class on how the United States Government is run per the Constitution.

It’s in the book of Nancy Piglosi!

Article 1, Section 2, Item 5: of the Constitution states, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” In the absence of any limitation set there, or elsewhere in the Constitution that leaves the decision of who when and where to impeach solely in the hands of the House of Representatives. So the more relevant question should be “Where in the Constitution is a former president exempted from impeachment?”

He was still in office. And it was a more to ensure that 45 couldn’t be seated again.

Is there ANY alternative to remove a sitting president (for treason as an example) other than through Congress? Can US Citizens remove a sitting president? I don’t think the framers of our constitution considered the depth of corruption in our government when they created the article for impeachment by Congress. When there is massive corruption within both parties and neither side will impeach a sitting president for treason (or some other valid reason for impeachment), the US citizens are left helpless.

I don’t believe framers considered the level of corruption as you describe but they hadn’t fully considered the depth (or true possibility?) of a two party system and the polarity that would ensue.

Somewhat correct… Thomas Jefferson warned us against a two party system. Yet here we are… sad state of affairs our nation is in.

John Adam’s also warned against the two party system…

Yes, We the People should be able to remove a sitting president via the Convention of States.

I agree, we should be able to remove. Read the President’s Oath of Office, he has violated it.

It’s called the 2nd amendment. The right to protect ourselves against tyrannical governments (both foreign and domestic)

Joe Biden would already be in prison for treason just because of the open border and engraved invitations. This is ludicrous over 140 countries have had people literally walk in. They have lost track of most. We have no idea who is here from the Got Away Group. Nearly a million of those and I am sure most are not here for asylum.

Our CONSTITUTION is not being followed WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING HEARD. We need to reread why do we have LIFE LONG CONGRESS PEOPLE WHEN THEY WERE ONLY 6 YEAR????

Unfortunately because the people keep buying into the marketing of political campaigns and keep reelecting the same people. In the absence of term limitations all we have is our vote. (For now)

We don’t need congress to sign a law for term limits. The states can do it without their support. Check it out. More and more people have signed the petition and many states have agreed to vote for them. Term limits are vital to our Republic

that is what I keep saying, you hear about imposing term limits on these folks, but why there already there in the Constitution!!!

The constitutional laws are greatly ignored by the left when is interferes with their agenda. The people need to vote for limits for the congress, house, and the senate as it is for the president. Also the constitutional laws need to be taught to ALL law enforcement officers who swear an oath to the constitution and have no idea how many and what the amendments intel.

I agree with your statement. I do think that police don’t understand all the individual rights that people have and because of that police use their pride and say that we are the ones who enforce the law so we know the law more than you do even though lawyers are the people who go to law school in order to become a lawyer. Now I do think that some police legitimately do know most of the rights people, but that is honestly very few.

They should be required to memorize the US constitution. They take an oath and that oath is a major part of job description. My opinion 80% violate their oaths regularly.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING HEARD!!!!!!! WE R THE PEOPLE!!!!!

All of you are super annoying. People on both sides always result to screaming. I’m just here to study for a government exam and this is what I see. It’s kind of sad.

If worrying about your studies are more important than what’s going on in America, that’s what’s sad. Do you realize our children are being endoctrinated to hate America, the flag, & told they’re either racist or victims. Do you know that some teachers believe that children, as young as 5 years old, are to be taught about transgenderism, sexual gratification, & other subjects that are totally inappropriate? For your children’s & grandchildren’s sake, wake up to the real threat & have your voice heard. There’s no screaming here, just deep concerns.

lemme guess, trump 2024?

Damn Right! Mr. Comrade.

Who?there is a liar out there that sometimes says he’s trump,but trump what?

So? Let me guess Joe Bite me 2020?

We have the right to yell..no one is hearing us n we are fed up! We are WE THE PEOPLE.. theses are our rights that are being destroyed. We need to rise up n fight go to the White House..its our right to fight .people fight for all the wrong things.We need to urge to get out n vote , regardless. .you are right in what you said

Don’t forget to mention the fact that children as young as five are given gender transition therapy so that same five-year-old can go through a surgery that permanently damages their bodies and the fact that most transgenders have about the same suicide rate as schizophrenics.

As a teenager in high school, your intent sounds good, but I can’t agree with all of your reasoning. What is going on in our country and the concerns we have for it are definitely something we should worry about, but we can’t take part in any change until we are of age and TAUGHT what goes on. We can not and will not get involved in things we know nothing about.

As for hating America and the flag, that is not something we are forced or taught to believe. We do that from what we learn and know about our government. With that being said, I disagree with many things that go on, however I would never say I hate America or the flag. Many people would agree with me on that. Those who bring disrespect to the flag and find vandalizing statues and other historic things as a way to express their disagreement can be under that category but not every child out there who does not like our laws has to be considered a child who hates America.

As for learning about transgenderism, there is no crime in teaching about that at a young age UNLESS it is sexualized to little kids. Knowing its okay to be yourself is no crime. If a young boy feels feminine and wants to be a girl, without being told or pressured that they have to be, someone wanting to explain what being transgender is and that its okay wants to tell him that, they should. And as most kids ask about sex, if they do then they can get the answer, like most parents give. Beings transgender or homosexual is not about sexual things but about it being okay to be you. Accepting that humans will love who they want and be who they want. Yet, you can’t accept that idea and try to say we can’t believe anything outside of what we are taught?

We are open minded to things that are accepting and fair to everyone, that is what we are taught. And if our country is not willing to make that happen and allow equality and fairness to all people, why would we like it? Love and acceptance and equality is all we want.

LETS GO MOM!!! lol you have the best comment here

Best comment by far

The 16th & 17th Amendments were not properly ratified by Individual State’s Congress and, therefore, invalid.

because you can be re-elected, diana.

MTG can be ousted on the basis of joining the Jan. 6 insurrection using the 14th amendment. Perhaps jailed or told to leave the USA for North Korea….

That only applied to the war between the states, falsely called a civil war by some uninformed people, but not one (a civil war iscone where two or more factions fight over conyrol of a govenment. Since the suth never tried to overthrow the union government, itcwas not a civil war.

The 1/6 incident was not an attempt to overhrow the government. It was a legal, constitutional attempt to ensure that only legitimate votes for president were counted.

Since no attemted insjrrection, or actual insurrection ny any Trump supporters occurred on 1/6, Ms greene cannot be ousted from Congress, neither can Trump, or any other elected Republican officialwho was in Washington that day, except for all members of the demonkkkrat party, who conspired to unseat Trump in obama’s operation crossfire hurricane “by any mrans necessary” starting in december 2016

I do believe MTG was in Congress with the rest of the house reps. Only a small fraction of the people at the Capitol that day actually went inside. I’d bet at least 99% of the people stayed outside the building and most peacefully assembled, others did get very loud at times. No reason to try to blame anything her or President Trump. The speech we all heard was no different than speeches he gave at all his other rallys.

I wish the constitution was clearer on treason because trying to impeach a president with knowingly with false evidence is a coup and that’s treason no brainer

I do agree, especially if you consider that the constitution was written during the late 1700’s which nowadays most people would be confused about what some of this people are saying.

The constitution is very clear on the definition of treason against the United States. Article 3, section 3 states: “Treason against the United States shall consist only of waging war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort….”

My history teacher has lied to me… she said the fifth was the right to not have to say anything say you got pulled over you didn’t have to say anything..

What do you think “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” means? It’s where our “Miranda rights” come from. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” You have the right to remain silent, per the fifth amendment.

Is anyone else just kinda sad looking at this? For most laws to made, this stuff actually has to be a problem.

Reversing Roe vs Wade is wrong. No government should tell a woman what she can do with her body. If it happens, then all males 18 yrs and older should have mandatory vasectomies!

Killing American citizens for convenience sake is wrong. The babies being brutally murdered are people; they are my neighbors, and no less American than you or me. Murder is not health care.

An unborn fetus is not an American Citizen lol… Brutally murdered is what happened to the 11 year old in Texas because we’d rather give rights to guns than our woman. Those children were your neighbors.

if you are pro life or not. I have worked in Health care seen addicted infants mother nor dad want or care. If you are pro life and against Government supporting these children with tax dollars. If you are Pro life you may want to line up in the nic unit in every hospital and be willing to raise a child that may never eat, speak, grow or learn .. I have seen these children and they suffer after birth . The mother nor father want to raise a child that needs 24 hour care and will never be able to care for themselves. This is just my opinion. I have held babies going through with drawl while their mom is discharged from hospital. When they return most went and got a “fix” If you are willing to support all these child then you really are pro life if not , you do not have enough information on what goes on in this epidemic.. My OPINION

We don’t give guns rights, we give people to have guns.

“An unborn fetus is not an American citizen lol”? Wrong!! An unborn fetus is a developing, breathing and living human being! We know this because we can see the unborn baby on a sonogram and hear a heart beat during the first trimester of pregnancy! An unborn fetus must be considered a citizen with rights (by law/courts) or people wouldn’t be convicted and receive 2 prison sentences for murders of a pregnant female and her unborn baby!

There is no constitutional right to murder your baby. You can still do it. It is just up to the states now. What’s wrong with being responsible and using birth control or maybe just not having sex.

That’s because of the 10th Amendment. The separation of federal and state government. Federal government only has the power afforded it by the constitution. Everything else is up to the states. That’s what the Supreme Court decided. Abortion should have never been governed by the federal government as it is not a constitutional right. It belongs to the power of the states.

No government is telling a woman what to do now that it’s been overturned SCOTUS has put the power back in the people’s hands in each State. Which is a democratic process don’t you agree.

Now that is a stupid statement, all women should then have hysterectomy’s???

No overturning Roe vs Wade just means abortion laws are now up to the states to decide if its legal or not, or if its legal within certain aspects like rape or incest. And forcing men 18 or older to have a vasectomy is just unnecessary and absolutely stupid, cause you said is basically saying that the government has control over a man’s reproductive system.

If the unborn baby’s mother is an American citizen, any babies she carries are American citizens before birth. If she is not an American citizen, and she gives birth on US soil, the newborn is a US citizen,but the mother is not.

But when she starts messing around with the body inside her that is wrong. She is just carting that baby but it does not give her the right to kill it because she was to stupid to use birth control or say no to the guy. Women should not resort to abortion for birth control. Why don’t you give the baby a chance and let a women have the baby that cannot conceive. Don’t kill the baby cause you are to selfish to save it and adopt it out.

To give more clarity to these amendments, it would be more informative if you would include the year each one was ratifiedratified.

Everything said here is of no import. We are NOT living under a legitimate government. Once we restore a legitimate government, then we can have discussions about any and all situations. Until that time, we have as much legal obligation to any regulations, new laws, SCOTUS rulings and the like as we do to such rulings of the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese Government doesn’t have legal jurisdiction over the people of the USA, and neither does this current crop of thieves, traitors, and political operatives who have hijacked our system. They do NOT have proper legal standing. Just because you are sneaky, lying, political operatives doesn’t mean you get to be the President and Speaker and such, regardless of what the manipulated voting system says. Time to pull the plug on these enemies of the state…this vipers nest of evil. This was an attack on the United States of America. This was an act of war. This rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic as it is sinking can keep people busy, but it isn’t of import. As this was an act of war and an attack on the sovereignity of the United States of America, this is a job for the military. Once the military has cleansed the Augean Stables of the horseshit, then we can carry out the Nuremburg 2.0 trials. After all, these people are responsible for every covid death, every vaccine death or disability, every fentanyl OD death, every death of Americans that did NOT receive help because our funds went elsewhere, foreign nations ( for the kickbacks), bribes etc. Those trillions ( TRILLIONS!!! mind you) of dollars could have paved a mile or 2 of distressed roadway, repaired at least 1 or 2 bridges, built a school or 2 in distreesed neighborhoods…. well you get the picture. Where did 5 or 6 TRILLION dollars go? My GOD thats a LOT of money….and where is it? We have been robbed blind in addition to everything else. We must confiscate 100% of the estates of these criminals as well as hang them.

Why is the 12th amendment not followed. Seems to me the practice laid out of a distinct ballot from president for vice president would give the people more control over who is in office. Currently, we arent really picking the VP they are apointed by the presidential candidate during the election campaign.

The main point of the 12th amendment was to get rid of the practice of second place candidate was the VP. Though nowadays I’m pretty sure that VP is decided alone with the president.

The USA is a broken country. An awesome constitution yet ruled by maritime law. That’s messed up. The biggest violations of the constitution come from the enforcement agency’s sworn to uphold it. Even sicker. Corrupt 3 letter agencies and the largest drug, weapons and human trafficking is done by them. Open boarders are for this purpose. Insider trading and government contracts given to friends with huge back handed contributions. The people need to take their country back sooner rather than later and hold all of these people accountable on a public stage for the entire world to see. Just my opinion.

Many of your comments represent people that are unhappy and do not live by the Bible. But more importantly, the pot is calling the kettle black. There are many reasons given as to why things are the way they are, but one important reason is never mentioned even though it is in the minds of many of you. You want to take America back to the 1800s or earlier. NOT going to happen.

Instead of trying to improve things, you are making it much worse than it should be. The only dictatorship is from the right wing and all these unqualifed so-called political persons from both sides.

Where in the constitution does it say that All elected officials have to abide by the constitutional laws as does a common citizen? Why are not our elected representatives adhere to the laws like us citizens do? Are they above the law? They don’t contribute to the social security system. They don’t get Medicare. They get their salaries for the rest of their lives! And you’re telling me they get the same treatment like the rest of us?

All this talk about a president who, INFACT did nothing for his country but promote racism and violence, WHILE he was in office. (By the way, the person I’m talking about is Donald Trump) and that I’m glad he was impeached. At least he did cause FURTHER DAMAGE to our great country. and anyone who says differently must be a Trump lover and if you think that he will run for the 2024 election… you must be pretty dumb.

Need to march on Washington and demand resignation of all the politicians because they are voted in by the people but they are not for the people they lie to get in office and do nothing they promised for the people they sell out to the corporations to screw the American people that is why there is so much poverty the rich get richer while the poorer get poorer Only way to show who’s crooked make it public all their tax information yearly income for politicians is not millions. Majority goes in don’t have a pot to piss in but by the first year they are multi millionaires They are sell outs to corporations to screw their own people over for the money. While us disabled veterans have to fight for what little we get . It’s a crying shame we stood for this country in time of need to just get shit on and medical discharged and live month to month and worry if we are going to be able to make the bills because they tell you you will be taken care of but it’s a lie and have to fight to get anything because they won’t to cut and take away what they promised we did there dirty work now that we got injured we are no use just discard us like trash If it wasn’t for us they wouldn’t have a job because none of them could endure and do what we did You want justice indict and convict all of them crooked politicians and seize their assets and put on the deficit because it was obtained illegally. That’s justice

Folks, the fact that you can express your opinions is the reason we are privileged to live in the US. The bottom line– if you want to continue using these forums and your Bill of Rights, democracy needs to be respected and protected.

Re this “individual states gained the right to police alcohol-related laws themselves.” in the description of the 21st Amendment, is “gained the right” correct? I’m no Constitutional scholar but I don’t recall the Constitution reserving that right to the Federal Government. But I DO remember the Constitution saying that all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government remain the purview of the States.

So, where does the wording “gained the right” come from?

I just came onto the site to review the Constitution. I never expected the banter and bashing. I see the division among us. I am entitled to my opinion but wont share my views other than to say to those who sacrificed for this country, we owe you a huge debt and I agree with your sentiments. You are appreciated.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Is the Equal Protection Clause?

What does militia mean, what rights do americans have under the constitution, please enter your email address to be updated of new content:.

© 2023 US Constitution All rights reserved

Visual First Amendment

[new_royalslider id=”3″]