TexasCHLforum.com

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment appears to be adhered to on a regular and equitable basis. When there are allegations of abuse, the ACLU seems more than willing to step in primarily in favor of secular arguments.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Taking this in a literal-light (much like SCOTUS did in Heller), this appears to be the only amendment that government entities feel free to regulate in a manner similar to driver's licenses. As this is not a privilege, but a right, this seems like something ripe for further constitutional challenge. To be precise, I question the validity of laws requiring non-felonious citizens to carry licenses for their usage and carry. Laws administering the usage of said-weapons are too, a moot point, as laws already in place prohibiting murder, burglary and a variety of other crimes should suffice.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This amendment is quite specific in that the Federal government should prescribe through Military regulations how soldiers (military members) interact with the general populace.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I see two extremes in societal values regarding the 4th Amendment. I see Miranda-rights being used as a shield against good-cause intentions (but not exclusively so); and, I see the Patriot Act being used to step-on some "basic" rights (but not in whole). The intent of both are valid, the protection of individual-rights and the protection of society as a whole. It is the extreme interpretation and application of both that I question.
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
I perceive no major issues regarding this amendment.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
My leftist leanings stick-out on this one...I believe that this amendment pertains to anyone being prosecuted by the Federal Government and its Agencies. I have no problem with recent convictions/executions of foreign nationals that have received due-process of the law (like the case of the rapist here in Texas that was recently executed despite the ACLU and Mexican government assertion that he should have been provided the chance to consult with his Consulate in the US). In this same line of thought, I am pleased that the Federal Government and its Agency (the US Military) have finally and belatedly decided to afford the same to the Guantanamo detainees. Playing semantic-games should not lessen our resolve to stick to our own standards when it comes to application of this particular Amendment.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I honestly don't know what the heck that one means...
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think that we as a Society have done a consistently effective job of adhering to this amendment.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
See my comments on the Second Amendment above. This one should support my argument against specifically regulating handguns.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Shouldn't that one have removed the basic premise behind the American Civil War?

This has been my rant. I make no claim to having any thorough understanding of the legal aspects of these amendments.

The 7th Amendment means what it says: (1) You have the right to a jury trial in any lawsuit involving a value more than $20. (2) Once a jury has rendered a verdict, the verdict itself cannot be overturned on appeal.

That amount of $20 would probably be equivalent to $1,000 or so in today's dollars.

This right is probably unique to the United States. In every other country that I know anything about, civil lawsuits are decided by a judge or a panel of judges.

Regarding (2), appeals must be concerned with technical aspects of the law, such as whether the presiding judge conducted the trial properly. They cannot reconsider the facts of the case or the jury deliberations. There is a bit of nibbling at the edges of this issue, but it is pretty solid.

- Jim

Regarding the 10th, you are right about the Civil War.

But virtually the entirety of the US Code, the vast majority of all Fedaral laws, violate the 10th Amendment.

* Void where prohibited by law.

If anyone says that the 2nd Amendment give the .gov the ability to license gun owners, tell them the 1st amendment gives the .gov the ability to license free speech, as in you can't talk about certain things unless it's pre-approved and you have a piece of paper saying that you can say something.