It was ratified in 1791 by the First Congress and mainly guarantees the rights of citizens and criminals accused of national crimes (Fifth Amendment). Without this amendment criminals accused of a crime could be indicted without a fair trial. The innocent could be subject to unfair treatment they did not deserve and in return the guilty could walk. This amendment also forces the national courts to follow fair procedures in their rulings in concern with an individual's life, liberty, and property. For example, in the case Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833) Barron, the plaintiff sought compensation for his property after the City diverted major rivers that led to his wharf, making the water too shallow for boats to travel on (Case Briefs). At a national level this violated the fifth amendment, and Barron was guaranteed a fair trial, but because the case was at state level Barron was unable to sue the City of Baltimore and did not receive compensation for his losses. Even though Barron lost, his case was still heard and ruled fairly. This case also later leads to the ratification of the fourteenth amendment which did not yet …show more content…
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona a series of cases were taken to the supreme court on the grounds that the police did not inform suspects of their rights before forcing a written confession from the accused (Fifth Amendment). The supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda and now because of it the police are forced to inform suspects of their right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment). The difference between these two cases is the right to remain silent was taken to the supreme court, a national court, and in turn the whole country was then affected. The right to remain silent is now a basic right today that everyone is aware of and can implement. On the other hand, if Barron had stood before a national court instead of a state court, he could have received compensation under the fifth amendment and his property would have been