Barring the media from reporting about ongoing criminal trials would violate which Constitutional Amendment?
1 person found this useful
How would you go about finding ongoing trials and learning about new discoveries on the Retinitis Pigmentosa issue?
Try searching www.clinicaltrials.gov ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States and around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more… details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care professionals. ( Full Answer )
If a proposed Amendment violates the Constitution should the Supreme Court be able to block its ratification?
Answer . Of course not! The whole purpose of an amendment is to change the Constitution! If we don't like what it says, or how the Supreme Court is interpretting it, we, the people, have the right to change the document.
Compare and contrast the proceedings of a criminal trial and civil trial relate constitutional rights for individuals what are the benefits of a civil trial?
this means that you have a right to attend your trial and be there on time.. this means that you have a right to attend your trial and be there on time.
If you want to be on the up-and-up, there are ways to claim it without incriminating yourself. The line 'other income' is a good catch-all that wouldn't disclose what you are doing.. Remember that taxes is how they finally got Al Capone. :). ANSWER: . If you want to be on the up and up then don'…t involve yourself in illegal activities. Filing an income tax return will not legitimize your criminal behavior and only someone who makes a living off of statutory schemes would advise you to keep breaking the law in terms of the illegal activities you claim to be involved with and just mark "other income" as a good catch-all phrase to avoid incriminating yourself. Whether you are involved in legal or illegal activities if you file an income tax return you are most certainly incriminating yourself as to the tax liability involved with that tax return. If at a later date you determine you were never liable for the tax or subject to the revenue law to begin with good luck in extricating yourself from this statutory scheme as you have willingly and willfully incriminated yourself as being a taxpayer as specifically defined by the Internal Revenue Code and therefore subject to and liable for the tax. ( Full Answer )
Yes the Patriot Act has violated the constitutional amendments. It violates the first. second, fourth, fifth, sixth eighth, and the fourteenth amendments.
The 6th amendment is generally thought of as the one guaranteeing a "fair trial", but actually it is a combination of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments that fully guarantees it, because together they guarantee specific rights that are components of the trial process.. The 5th amendment gua…rantees the right to be charged in an indictment, the right not to be tried twice for the same crime, the right not to be forced to incriminate one's self, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. It would be hardly "fair" for the government to have no witnesses but just put the defendant on the witness stand and force him to testify against himself.. The 6th amendment is more to the point. It guarantees a right to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of the charges, to be confronted with the witnesses, to have compulsory process for getting witnesses and to have counsel. Note that there is no guarantee of a jury of 12 persons who are the peers of the defendant. Nor of unanimity of the verdict.. The Fourteenth Amendment makes these amendments applicable to the states. The Bill of Rights ws originally applicable onlt to the federal government, not the states. But the vast majority of criminal trials are in state courts. The 6th amendment would be pretty hollow if it did not apply to the states.. ( Full Answer )
Trial by impartial jury, speedy public trial, right to a lawyer, and right meet the lawyer against him/her.
There are five ways:. 1) Prove the amendment was enacted via fraudulent promotion, or. 2) Overthrow the government, or. 3) Promote and pass another amendment to replace the amendment you want repealed, or. 4) Promote and pass a federal amendment to the constitution which would trump a state cons…titution, or. 5) Move to a state or country which doesn't have such a statute in their constitution. ( Full Answer )
In all cases of criminal prosecution the accused shall have the right to speedy trial what does the constitution say about the location of that trial?
the location of that trial needs to be up your butt and around thecorner beacuse im sexy and i know it so try hard and what goesaround comes around lol!!!!!!!!!!
A proposed amendment violates the Constitution should the Supreme Court be able to block its ratification?
No. The Supreme Court would be violating their constitutional separation of powers if they tried to block a new amendment to the Constitution. Even if this were possible, allowing the Court that much control over how the document is amended would afford them far too much control of government. Ar…ticle V dictates a proposed amendment must receive a two-thirds vote of both the Senate and House of Representatives and ratification of seventy-five percent of the States. This process is designed to minimize the possibility of "unconstitutional" amendments becoming part of the Constitution. ( Full Answer )
The 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive fines. But this might be a borderline case. Some communities might levy such a fine reasonably, say for blocking a fire road, or a bridge, or a railroad track, or even the emergency entrance to a hospital. But for simple parking… violations, this would likely be ruled excessive (as would a lengthy jail term for such a relatively minor offense). ( Full Answer )
the Salem Witch trails took place in 1692 and the first amendment was adopted December 15, 1791 so they could not be violating the first amendment. EDIT: If the amendment had existed, it would not have been violated. The victims were arrested on evidence the government declared viable, they were gi…ven a fair civil trial and convicted on a charge that was legal in Puritan Massachusetts. ( Full Answer )
Is 25k reasonable for a Criminal Trespass Class a Misdemeanor warrant and Is that not a violation of the 8th amendment?
While it might seem a little high, the offense of "Criminal Trespass" is seldom charged as an offense in and of itself. What other offense occurred or was attempted? How many times has this occurred previously? What is the trespasser's relationship to the person on who's property they trespassed? De…pending on the circumstances Twenty five thousand dollars bond might not be much at all. Not enough information about the offense is known to give an answer. ( Full Answer )
Refer to the 7th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. A jury during a civil suit may be opted for.
Haha! Its probly not... none of that is important... just wastes my time in school... now gtfo, stfu and go play CoD or something actually WORTH your time XD
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. While this doesn't pertain specifically to trials, it governs what evidence may be admitted at trial and used to convict the person accused. Evidence obtained unlawfully is excluded from consideration, as is any evidence… stemming from the unlawfully obtained evidence ("The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"). The Fifth Amendment requires that capital cases (those which can bring a sentence of death on conviction) be brought before a grand jury for indictment before going to trial. This is a control over the power of the prosecutor to bring charges without review. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from having to give testimony or other evidence that might be used to convict them. This protection is often misunderstood. If a defendant (the person charged with the crime) decides to testify at trial, he is compelled to answer questions from the prosecutor during cross-examination, even if the answers might be incriminating. If the defendant wishes to avoid answering those questions, he can refuse to testify at all. The Fifth Amendment also protects the right to due process. In order to impose a penalty on a person who has committed a crime, the state must follow all the rules and procedures. For instance, if the state had evidence that would tend to prove the innocence of an accused person, and did not reveal the existence of this evidence to the accused, the accused would be denied due process. The Sixth Amendment guarantes the right to a "speedy and public trial." This means that the state must commence trial proceedings within a span of time determined by local court rules. If the defendant requests a continuance or otherwise delays the start of the trial, the right to a spedy trial is waived and no longer applies. The right to a public trial ensures against "Star Chamber" secret proceedings that can be used to violate the accused's rights. The Sixth Amendment further guarantees that the court will have jurisdiction over the charge brought against the defendant (e.g. a court in California has no jurisdiction over a crime committed in Oregon), and that the accused has the right to cross-examine any witnesses that testify against him. It also guarantees that the defendant has the power of the subpoena to bring witnsses for his defense to court. A subpoena compels a witness' attendance to court, even if they don't want to come, and forces them to testify (although they can't be compelled to give testimony that would incriminate them). Finally, the Sixth Amendment ensures that the accused has the assistance of an attorney in defending himself. This right has been clarified to apply only when the accused is in jeopardy of imprisonment, should he be convicted. There is no right to have an attorney whose services are paid for by the government in minor crimes such as traffic offenses and shoplifting, unless the state states an intent to seek jail time on conviction. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution gives every person the right to refuse to incriminate himself. (This is often called 'taking the fifth.') Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment gives all citizens protection from states and local governments removing their constitution rights. Further, it gives all people (not just citizens) the right to maintain life, liberty and property except with due process of law. This means that states can't take away your right to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms without a trial. The state can't put you in prison or take your home without a trial. ( Full Answer )
The Seventh, but that particular Amendment is not binding on the states. A state could set up a system where you get no jury trial in a civil case. That is because the Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - in other words, the right …to a jury in a civil case has never been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a right that is so fundamental as to be indispensable to the concept of ordered liberty. Other amendments that have not been incorporated (that is, compelling the states to enforce them) are the right to a grand jury (Fifth Amendment), and the right not to have troops quartered in your house (Third Amendment). ( Full Answer )
Most of the Americans at that time didn't think it should end, they liked it.
The Nuremberg Trials held Japanese war criminals accountable for crimes agenst humanity in violation of the rules of war true or false?
The first Nuremberg trial were only for the European war criminals (Class-A). Subsequent Nuremberg trials were held for lesser criminals. Other European countries also held separate trials for lesser war criminals (Class B & C). The International Military Tribunal for the Far Ear were for major Ja…panese war criminals (Class-A). Other countries held separate trials for lesser (Class-B and C) war criminals. Also after WWI Germany agreed to hold war crimes trials but since the allies did not occupy the German/Austrian nations, the trials were not generally successful, thought the court did its best. ( Full Answer )
Are you referring to the "sentence" they would receive from the judge? "Incarceration" if they received jail/prison time?
No that is the 6th amendment in a Criminal Trial, and a 7th in a Civil Trial (but that right, in civil trials, has been taken away).
No existing amendment to the US Constitution explicitly protects orbans same-sex marriage. There is currently no nationwide ban on same-sex marriage in theUnited States and the issue is left up to the individual states.However, the federal government was prohibited from recognizingsuch marriages, e…ffective September 21, 1996, because of theDefense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by then PresidentBill Clinton. In 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutionalbecause it deprived individuals of due process (Fifth Amendment),the court viewing the law as punishing those that a state law wasdesigned to protect. The Federal Marriage Amendment (FRA) which would have amended theUS Constitution to ban same-sex marriage was introduced in 2006,but did not pass. There is no Constitutional amendment which addresses marriage. Theregulation of marriage is reserved to the states. ( Full Answer )
Did the Nuremberg trials hold Japanese war criminals accountable for crimes against humanity in violation of the rules of war?
No, the Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg Germany, and as one might suspect, it was to try the Germans for war crimes. The Tokyo Tribunal was held to try the Japanese.
A criminal violation is a violation that was caused on purpose or not "at fault" and a strictly forbidden violation as well.
No. I would not oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing Americans the right to marry someone of their own sex. I would, however, oppose an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
Who argued that a congressional ban on slavery in the territories would violate the Fifth Amendment?
Of course it will because that's the part of the part of the Bill of Rights, that is mented to protects against abuse of government authority... can consider the congress being abusive because they want to impose something in other countries that are not their motherland. OR John C. Calhoun...… ( Full Answer )
very bad,there would be little to no laws and violence wil be worst then today
The sixth amendment provides most of the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. The one with which most are familiar concerns a part of the so-called Miranda rights, in which the accused has the right to seek the advise of an attorney.
Not sure exactly what you mean. Handguns don't violate any amendment. Firearm ownership in general is protected by the second amendment.
The same way anybody can break any law: illegally. If you're alleging that this has occurred and you want to know why it was allowed in a particular instance that you consider to be a violation, you'll have to be more specific. However, there are two basic ways the federal government could just…ify actions that some people might consider a violation of the tenth amendment. One would be by passing another amendment granting itself the specific powers it wants. Doing so automatically squares such actions with the tenth amendment, as they then become "granted to it by [an amendment to] the Constitution." A good example of this would be prohibition... nothing in the constitution expressly allowed the Federal government to prohibit alcohol entirely (the "interstate commerce" clause gave it the power to prohibit transporting alcohol from one state to another, but not to do so within a single state) until the 18th amendment was passed, at which point it explicitly was granted that power. The other would be to argue that the actions in question are in fact implicit within the scope granted to it by the constitution. For example, the power to "regulate interstate commerce" has occasionally been interpreted as the power to intervene in local affairs which have an impact on interstate commerce. ( Full Answer )
The two men who proposed amendments to the constitution that wouldoutlaw abolition were representative Thomas Corwin and Senator JohnCrittenden. Thomas Corwin was from Ohio and John Crittenden wasfrom Kentucky.
There are a number of options available to the court. Initially, both the prosecution and the defense is given the opportunity to voir dire potential jurors, in an effort to keep people that have heard media coverage about the case from being on the jury. If it is a locally publicized case, …the case may be transferred to a different location, where jurors will be less likely to have heard media info. . Next, if there is ongoing media coverage, both sides can ask the court to sequester the jury, or keep them in a closed location and unable to be exposed to media. . Sometimes the media is prevented or limited from being in the courtroom during trial. Often cameras are prohibited from courtrooms. . ( Full Answer )
The term is a reference to a particular case (in this instance a State of California case (People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2 nd 418) which sets forth what must be contained in an affidavit for a warrant (i..e.: 'Probable Cause'), when a warrant is applied for by law enforcement. In common every…day law enforcement usage, simply the term "warrant affidavit" is more commonly used, dropping the specific reference to Sesslin. To answer the question , if the case is, in fact, ongoing, it would APPEAR that the prosecution believes that PC exists to uncover further evidence, (or arrest further individuals) in relation to the ongoing case. ( Full Answer )
The 14th Amendment has two applicable parts: The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Under the Due Process Clause , no state can deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property (which has been interpreted to include rights and freedoms) without due process of law. This means stat…es cannot deprive their citizens of rights contained in, guaranteed by or extending from the U.S. Constitution. Although the US Constitution does not mention marriage in any way, it does contain a "Full Faith and Credit Clause" which requires state A to honor contracts made in state B. This is also applied to things such as license plates, legal name changes, car registrations, divorces, adoptions and marriages. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") purports to enable states to violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause with respect to marriage, based upon the gender of the parties thereto. One can argue that the Due Process Clause prohibits states from violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause without judicial review. Under the Equal Protection Clause , a state must provide equal protection under the law to all persons within its jurisdiction. This means that if a state enacts a law that has an adverse impact on one group of people, it may not do so arbitrarily and there must exist a compelling need for the law to be enacted. As evidenced by California's Proposition 8 trials, it can be difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible. This is one reason why the parties who sued to prevent same-sex marriage in California also fought very hard to prevent videotape of them speaking the arguments they made in court from being released to the public. They themselves argued that if the public saw them saying the things they said in Court, there would be outrage, death threats and their careers would be irreparably harmed. One can argue that the Equal Protection Clause is violated by states that permit some citizens to marry, but not others and then cannot produce a coherent argument as to why this is necessary. ( Full Answer )
Which action would most likely to be judged a violation of civil rights as protected by first amendment to be US Constitution?
Censorship of Media Institutions are the most flagrant and important violation of American Civil Liberties (In the United States the FCC).
It was not. The fourth amendment did not go into effect until December of 1791. The Salem witch hysteria occured in 1692. The fourth amendment, the constitution and the United States of America all didn't exist in 1692.
WikiAnswers will not do your homework for you. We will not conduct your research, or write your discussion papers or essays. That is considered CHEATING. If you have a specific question about the subject we are willing to try to assist.
The amendments that are concerned with the accused rights would be the fourth(unreasonable search and seizures), fifth(protection against compelled self-incrimination), sixth(right to counsel), seventh(rules involving trials), eighth(excessive and unusual punishment), and fourteenth(due process clau…se). ( Full Answer )
no you wouldn't you couldn't because if there were no amendments there would be no rights for the citizens. if there is no rights for the citizens, people would be not allowed freedom of speech or religion and also the country would almost be like a dictatorship.
If someone on probation is pennsyvania was reported to have put their child in danger would that be a violation?
The hangup here is the "was reported to". Being "reported to" do something doesn't mean you actually did it, and even if you did, it doesn't necessarily mean that what you did was in fact illegal. Any violation of the law is automatically a parole violation, so if this person really did break the… laws regarding child endangerment then yes, it would be a parole violation. ( Full Answer )
Type your answer here... The First Amendment provides the right to the press. The Sixth Amendment gives the right to a speedy and public trial in criminal matters. With these two amendments, the press has the right to attend public criminal proceedings.
Another amendment, or a finding by a federal court that it was unconstitutional under the US Constitution.
The 1st Amendment. Which reads: "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 grie…vances." ( Full Answer )
The school has the right to set a dress code and it doesn't limit free expression. When you are at school you basically have no rights and as a minor your rights are also limited. A school or business has the right to set a dress code. This has all ready gone to the courts and they found for the sch…ool. ( Full Answer )
The 16th amendment of the constitution on the United States of America is written regarding taxes for both people and religious institutions. If a church is taxed it would be a violation of this amendment.
There are three ways to report violations to the health department. These include call or visit the local health department and filling out a health code violation complaint online.
A tort is a wrongful act that injures or interferes with another'sperson or property. A tort case is a civil court proceeding. A crime is a wrongful act that the state or federal government hasidentified as a crime. A criminal case is a criminal proceeding. Tort law is different from criminal law …in that: (1) torts mayresult from negligent but not intentional or criminal actions and(2) tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof such aspreponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. There is some overlap between criminal law and tort law. Forexample an assault may be both a crime and a tort. So while a tort is not a criminal act, an act may be both a tortand a crime. ( Full Answer )
The answer to this question depends on the definition of hard labor. Be that it is, many US States have prisoners who perform hard labor in such areas of "chain gangs" that are assigned to work on rebuilding roads and other related outdoor road work. To date, the US Constitution has permitted what …is called hard labor. ( Full Answer )
The County Unit System in Georgia works similarly to theelectoral college on the national level. Nonetheless, it violatesthe principle of "one person - one vote" endorsed by Earl Warren,the Chief Justice who delivered the rendering of Baker v. Carr,which was topically similar to Gray v. Sanders. N…evertheless, thereis not a constitutional amendment relating to the case, except thatthe idea of political equality functions in the same way as the14th amendment requiring that the application of the law is equalfor all citizens. ( Full Answer )
To pass an amendment is (intentionally) difficult to do. To passone, 3/4 of all the state legislatures have to ratify it. In 1860,there were 33 states, which meant that 25 states had to ratify it.The problem is that 15 states were Slave States - the 11 that wouldsecede and form the Confederacy, plus… the four "Border States".Those 15 states would never vote in favor of ratifying anamendment to abolish slavery. This is why the 13th amendment could not be passed until 1865- theConfederate leaders had been forced out of their states'governments upon losing the Civil War. Their replacements, largelyfrom the Republican Party, tended to favor abolition, and werewilling to vote for it. The amendment process had begun prior toLincoln's death in April 1865, but the amendment was fully ratifiedby the end of the year. ( Full Answer )