0
Bill of Rights
The first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were considered crucial by many of the early founders and were necessary to gain support of some of the states.
2,194 Questions
Why was the tenth amendment adopted?
because the Constitution failed to list powers belonging to the national government
concern among Anti-Federalists that the national government would claim powers otherwise belonging to the states
Is the freedom of press gauranteed by the first amendment?
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.
How does the first amendment guarantee your right to voice your opinion?
The First Amendment protects people's right to free speech, meaning they may not be stopped from criticizing the government. It also protects the right of people to peaceably assemble, meaning that people can get together to protest actions of the government as long as they do so peaceably. Lastly it protects the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, meaning that Congress cannot shut anyone out of at least raising complaints about issues. In sum, it asssures that the government does not get complete control of how the government runs the way a monarchy, like Great Britain was able to do.
Which are known as the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution?
The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.
Were the Federalists in favor of a bill of rights?
No. The Federalists believed that there was no need for a specific "bill of rights," because the Constitution provided a government of specific, LIMITED powers. For example, the Constitution (the Federalists believed) did not need a specific "freedom of religion" right, because the Constitution didn't allow the government any power to regulate religion. The Constitution didn't need a specific "right" to keep arms, because there was no power to regulate arms in the 18 "Enumerated Powers" of Article 1, Section 8.
The anti-Federalists believed that EVERY government would expand and take powers that it was not allowed to have, unless there were explicit guarantees that would prevent it. They demanded a "bill of rights" of the citizens to protect against tyranny and an expansive Federal government.
The Federalists agreed - because they were sure that the Constitution itself would never allow unchecked governmental expansion. Well, the Federalists were WRONG, and our government HAS grown unchecked, to the point where only those specific prohibitions of government have prevented it from growing even further. And even these are routinely undermined, as rapacious government takes anything that isn't positively prohibited, and a great number of things that ARE prohibited.
How does the first amendment apply to censorship?
It does not directly address censorship.
However, the 1st Amendment's prohibition on restrictions of freedom of speech and press indirectly restrict attempts at censorship.
Thus, indirectly, the US Constitution prohibits censorship except in the case where it can be shown to directly support other competing Consitutional guarranties - such as the National Security exception, where the right of national self-defense is seen to trump free press/speech in certain circumstances, and thus, allow censorship in those cases.
How are the 5th 6th and 7th amendment different?
The difference between the sixth and seventh amendment is that the seventh amendment offers civil jury. That means back then it didnt matter if you were black or white, you deserve an equal trial. In the sixth, it doesn't say anything about civil so that means it doesn't matter if its civil or not.
What is the general purpose of first amendment?
The primary purpose of the first amendment was to prevent the state from dictating the faith of the population and to prevent religious persecution. The first amendment also ensured that those in power could not attempt to silence dissenting views.
When did the Bill of Rights make effect?
The Bill of Rights which is part of the US Constitution came into being in 1791 when the US Constitution was ratified by the new American nation. Originally the Bill of Rights contained 10 amendments.
Who refuesed to sign the constitution because it did not contain a bill of rights?
George Mason and Patrick Henry are probably the two most prominent Founding Fathers who refused to sign the constitution. Mason refused to sign because at the time, the constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
What are some US Supreme Courts cases about the Fifth Amendment?
Selection of Historic and Landmark Fifth Amendment Cases
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833)
Held that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause did not apply apply to the states in cases of eminent domain.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
Held slavery constitutional. Declared slaves were property and denied the US had a right to free slaves when brought into territories where slaveholding was illegal, under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Adair v. United States, 208 US 161 (1908)
Held Congress cannot make firing an employee for membership in a labor union a criminal offense on the part of the employer.
Twining v. State, 211 US 78 (1908)
Held the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply in state courts.
Chambers v. Florida, 309 US 227 (1940)
Murder convictions cannot be obtained by use of coerced confessions.
Adamson v. California, 332 US 46 (1947)
Upheld Twining v. State ruling that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is not binding on the states.
Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954)
Found the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 constitutional under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, despite eminent domain being exercised for commercial development.
Ullman v. United States, 350 US 422 (1956)
Held the Immunity Act of 1954, which allowed prosecutors to compel self-incriminating testimony regarding Communist activity (as a matter of national security) was a legitimate exception to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The Court upheld the Act.
Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 US 551 (1956)
Held that a provision of the New York City charter (1956) that allowed the city to fire without hearing or notice employees who exercised privilege against self-incrimination was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mallory v. United States, 354 US 449 (1957)
Held that a defendant who was neither advised of his rights nor taken before a committing magistrate prior to confessing was tried under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, and reversed his conviction. Although this is technically a Fifth Amendment issue similar to Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), the Court did not touch on constitutional protections in their decision.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)
Held that the US Secretary of State was not authorized to withhold passports from citizens on the basis of alleged communistic beliefs or refusal to file affidavits concerning past or present membership in the Communist Party.
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing individuals' Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, and that the protection applies to witnesses as well as defendants. (Compare with Adamson v. California,(1947))
Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board,382 US 70 (1965)
Held that the Subversive Activities Control Board requirement compelling individuals to register under the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 was self-incriminatory, creating an opportunity to use the information as evidence or the basis of an investigation, and therefore, unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
Held that neither exculpatory nor inculpatory statements given before someone in police custody was advised of their rights or allowed access to an attorney were inadmissable in court. The police action was in violation the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Miranda Warning was established as a direct result of this case.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 US 294 (1967)
Primarily a Fourth Amendment case, the Court held evidence obtained in a legal search was neither "testimonial" nor "communicative," and therefore their use in court did not constitute a Fifth Amendment violation.
Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970)
Held that a Florida rule of criminal procedure requiring a defendant to disclose the names of intended alibi witnesses was constitutional, despite the defendant's claim that supplying the names was a Fifth Amendment violation on the grounds that the information could be used to convict him. The Court found the discovery rule only accelerated the timing of the defendant's declaration of intent to use an alibi defense, and therefore was not self-incriminating.
Harris v. New York, 401 US 222 (1971)
Modified the Miranda decision to allow admission of a defendant's otherwise excluded statement if the statement conflicts with the testimony, as a means of impeaching him as a witness. The right to testify or refuse to testify does not include the right to commit perjury.
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 US 88 (1976)
Held that the federal government cannot create a blanket exclusion from civil service employment against lawful resident aliens without conducting a hearing or specifically justifying a reason on a by-case basis. The exclusion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 US 610 (1976)
Prosecution cannot use a defendant's decision to invoke Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination to impeach later testimony at trial. Silence following arrest is ambiguous, not incriminating, and can't be used against the defendant.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 US 74 (1980)
Held that a California state constitutional provision allowing people the right to solicit signatures on private property is constitutional and does not violate the shopping center owner's property rights.
Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980)
Held that Title XIX (the Hyde Amendment) of the Medicaid program does not require states to pay for medically necessary abortion, and is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz,449 US 166 (1980)
Used the rational basis test to uphold the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 as constitutional, despite certain provisions of the Act creating a larger windfall profit for a limit number of former railroad employees. Held the law was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkif, 467 US 229 (1984)
Upheld the constitutionality of Hawaiian legislation, the Land Reform Act of 1967, which allowed certain land to be condemned and title transferred from the lessor to the lessee in order to break a landholding monopoly.
Nollan v. California Coast Community, 483 US 825 (1987)
Held that requiring the landowner to allow a public easement on his beachfront property connecting one public beach to another was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause because the owner was compensated in the form of a zoning exception and permit that allowed him to construct a bungalow in an area that would otherwise not be allowed.
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279 (1991)
Held that a confession made to an FBI informant posing as an organized crime figure in exchange for protection from other inmates was coercive and inadmissible under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173 (1991)
Upheld the constitutionality of the Secretary of Health and Human Services interpretation of Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which had vague wording that neither explicitly permitted nor denied federal funds to be used for abortion counseling, after the Secretary decided not to allocate money money for that purpose. Held that the interpretation was reasonable and not a violation of the Fifth, First or Fourth Amendments.
Adarand Construction Inc. v. Pena, 515 US 200 (1995)
Held that the trial court had not applied strict scrutiny in evaluating whether a race-based diversity provision of a government building contract served a valid purpose or resulted in unequal treatment under the Fifth Amendment. Remanded.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning, 535 US 302 (2002)
Held that a 32-month regulatory moratorium on development in the Tahoe area did not constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and was not compensable.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 US 469 (2005)
Held that the government exercised eminent domain appropriately when transferring property from unwilling sellers of private property to a private developer who planned to use the land for economic development (shopping and office space). The transfer constituted a permissible interpretation of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. AND YOUR GAY AS HECK!
What in the Bill of Rights was not included in the final Constitution?
The Constitution was signed by the delegates and authenticated by George Washington without the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to the Constitution. When the Constitution was sent to the 13 states for ratification, the Bill of Rights was not included, and many states would have failed to ratify without an iron-clad promise that certain rights would be memorialized in writing later. Eventually, all 13 state legislatures ratified the original document, and the Bill of Rights was added subsequently.
Double Jeopardy Clause
Which is true about protection provided by the 4th amendment?
Warrants are needed to search for evidence in homes
What dose the third amendment prohibit?
This one is easy! The military can't force people to host soldiers in their home anymore!
What two things are prohibited under the eighth amendment?
protects accused person's rights after trial
if a person is founded guilty of a crime, there is to be no excessive charge / punishment (EX: hanging)
Which rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute?
Rights and freedom are absolute and self evident. You exist by right not because the state allowed you to, and if ever the state decides it won't allow you to exist what is not absolute is that you will stand and fight for your God given rights, or if you do fight you will prevail. If you stand and fight and do not prevail, others will because you stood and fought for truth and justice. To say there are no absolutes is to be hypocritical since the statement is an absolute. Of course there are absolutes! Those who work to convince you other wise are not concerned with your best interest, they are not concerned with truth, they are concerned with winning the argument. Freedom is not a debate, it is the way things are, and no one can know this until they choose to be free.
What are some controversy to the sixth amendment?
try searching up Guantánamo Bay. Its a detention camp operated by Joint Task Force since 2002. Its a valuable base with prisoners captured from the 2002 Afghanistan war. The Bush administration captured 775 Afghan prisoners and transferred them to the detainment camp. Critics allege that the prisoners are being denied basic human rights and justice by being held for so long without trial (Speedy Trial Clause). However, Pentagon officials contend that the laws of war entitle them to hold "enemy combatants" without trial for the duration of hostitlities.
Why did the Framers agree to include the Bill of Rights?
Actually, the original draft of the Constitution had no Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a collection of ten amendments, or "changes." These changes were made in order to clarify the position of the document concerning certain issues.
penumbra
Which amendment gives an individual a right to a lawyer?
The 6th amendment of the United States Constitution provides Americans the right to have a lawyer present if you have been charged with a crime. It has more recently been determined that if you cannot afford a lawyer, a court appointed lawyer will be provided.
Why did the founding fathers include the eighth amendment?
The Bill of Rights were written to give the individual rights from the government. The 8th Amendment was added because it protects the individual from excessive actions by the courts. Specifically the 8th Amendment prevents the courts from imposing excessive bail or fines, or imposing cruel and unusual punishments.
