The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment
By a thirty-three to eleven vote, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Although, on July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to include, all natural born citizens as well as the protection of life, liberty and property. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect all the rights of the American people. There have been a few cases recently that were brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the more recent U.S. Supreme Court cases is that of Obergefell v. Hodges. In this case 14 same-sex couples were arguing that a few select states were violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights by not allowing them to marry a person of the same sex. Two other cases were, Bethune-Hill et al. v. Virginia State …show more content…
Board of Elections et al. and McCrory, et al. v. Harris and Brewer. In both of the above cases the states are being questioned on whether they are violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights by using a fixed racial quota to draw in state legislative districts (Current Cases, Constitutional Accountability Center. (n.d.))
Gideon and the Fourteenth Amendment In his appeal, Gideon wrote that he should have been granted right to counsel because he could not afford one himself. Although, he did not have any special circumstances, which, at the time, was a circumstance for which counsel would be provided. Gideon wrote that the Court had denied him one of his constitutional rights by not proving counsel when he asked. Therefore, he was forced to represent himself with no experience.
Betts v. Brady Betts was convicted of robbery in Maryland.
He was poor and unable to pay for his own defense. He appealed his convicted because of the court’s refusal to a court appointed attorney was in direct violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. At this time, the court was only granting the right to counsel in special circumstances. “The petitioner, in this instance, asks us, in effect, to apply a rule in the enforcement of the due process clause. He says the rule to be deduced from our former decisions is that, in every case, whatever the circumstances, one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State” Betts v. Brady (1942). The holding by the Court in this case was that the Betts need not a lawyer in order to have a fair trial. Thus, the Court decided that counsel only needs to be appointed in certain trials but not all trials. This differed from Gideon v. Wainwright because in Gideon’s case the decision of Betts v. Brady was overturned. The decided that it was a violation of his due process rights. Rich and poor should both have the opportunity to counsel regardless. A defendant cannot properly defend themselves as well as a professional lawyer could, therefore, counsel needs to be granted if ask
for.
Indigent Defendants The states were not inclined to grant indigent defendant’s with attorneys because they felt that the defendant’s in non-capital cases were able to accurately represent themselves in trial. They voted that there was no violation of due process or equal protection under the law by not providing a lawyer to the defendants when they asked. William Rawle, a Philadelphia lawyer, wrote in 1825, “The most innocent man, pressed by the awful solemnities of public accusation and trial, may be incapable of supporting his own cause. He may be utterly unfit to cross-examine the witnesses against him, to point out the contradictions or defects of their testimony, and to counteract it by properly introducing it and applying his own” Lewis (1964). This completely goes against what the Courts believed. By allowing a person to represent themselves in trail we must believe that they are fully capable to do so.
Justification to the States Gideon’s attorney was able to justify to the states to provide indigent with attorneys because we cannot expect one to be able to represent themselves in a trial without any education or knowledge about the actual law. The law itself is complex and difficult for the average person to understand. Therefore, it is a necessity for defendant’s to be provided with counsel in order to give them a fair trial. If Gideon would have been provided counsel during the trial in which he was found guilty, he could have been better represented and the facts of the case could have been brought to light by someone who is knowledgeable in the law. Gideon most likely would have been found guilty that day had the courts provided him with the counsel he had asked for.
Holding of the Court
By a thirty-three to eleven vote, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Although, on July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to include, all natural born citizens as well as the protection of life, liberty and property. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect all the rights of the American people. There have been a few cases recently that were brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the more recent U.S. Supreme Court cases is that of Obergefell v. Hodges. In this case 14 same-sex couples were arguing that a few select states were violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights by not allowing them to marry a person of the same sex. Two other cases were, Bethune-Hill et al. v. Virginia State …show more content…
Board of Elections et al. and McCrory, et al. v. Harris and Brewer. In both of the above cases the states are being questioned on whether they are violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights by using a fixed racial quota to draw in state legislative districts (Current Cases, Constitutional Accountability Center. (n.d.))
Gideon and the Fourteenth Amendment In his appeal, Gideon wrote that he should have been granted right to counsel because he could not afford one himself. Although, he did not have any special circumstances, which, at the time, was a circumstance for which counsel would be provided. Gideon wrote that the Court had denied him one of his constitutional rights by not proving counsel when he asked. Therefore, he was forced to represent himself with no experience.
Betts v. Brady Betts was convicted of robbery in Maryland.
He was poor and unable to pay for his own defense. He appealed his convicted because of the court’s refusal to a court appointed attorney was in direct violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. At this time, the court was only granting the right to counsel in special circumstances. “The petitioner, in this instance, asks us, in effect, to apply a rule in the enforcement of the due process clause. He says the rule to be deduced from our former decisions is that, in every case, whatever the circumstances, one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State” Betts v. Brady (1942). The holding by the Court in this case was that the Betts need not a lawyer in order to have a fair trial. Thus, the Court decided that counsel only needs to be appointed in certain trials but not all trials. This differed from Gideon v. Wainwright because in Gideon’s case the decision of Betts v. Brady was overturned. The decided that it was a violation of his due process rights. Rich and poor should both have the opportunity to counsel regardless. A defendant cannot properly defend themselves as well as a professional lawyer could, therefore, counsel needs to be granted if ask
for.
Indigent Defendants The states were not inclined to grant indigent defendant’s with attorneys because they felt that the defendant’s in non-capital cases were able to accurately represent themselves in trial. They voted that there was no violation of due process or equal protection under the law by not providing a lawyer to the defendants when they asked. William Rawle, a Philadelphia lawyer, wrote in 1825, “The most innocent man, pressed by the awful solemnities of public accusation and trial, may be incapable of supporting his own cause. He may be utterly unfit to cross-examine the witnesses against him, to point out the contradictions or defects of their testimony, and to counteract it by properly introducing it and applying his own” Lewis (1964). This completely goes against what the Courts believed. By allowing a person to represent themselves in trail we must believe that they are fully capable to do so.
Justification to the States Gideon’s attorney was able to justify to the states to provide indigent with attorneys because we cannot expect one to be able to represent themselves in a trial without any education or knowledge about the actual law. The law itself is complex and difficult for the average person to understand. Therefore, it is a necessity for defendant’s to be provided with counsel in order to give them a fair trial. If Gideon would have been provided counsel during the trial in which he was found guilty, he could have been better represented and the facts of the case could have been brought to light by someone who is knowledgeable in the law. Gideon most likely would have been found guilty that day had the courts provided him with the counsel he had asked for.
Holding of the Court