Bill of Rights

The 27 amendments are:

1. Freedom of Religion,press,assembly,petition,and speech.
2. Right to bear arms.
3. Limits on Quartering Soldiers.
4. Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Protection of self-incrimination-Due process- double jeopardy-pardon-eminent domain- pay-grand jury.
6. Right to a fair and speedy trial- Jury Evidence-Lawyer-Witness- right to an attorney.
7. Right to a jury of your peers- Civil cases law suits.
8. Forbids cruel or unusual punishment- no torture, forced confession-excessive fines.
9. Escape clause. (no restriction on unenumerated rights)
10. Retention of rights by the States and People not otherwise given to the Federal Government
11. Explains what happens for a citizen of one state to sue another state - National government solves problems.
12. Explains process of electing our president- vice president.
13. Slavery is officially ended.
14. Describes the civil rights of each citizen, takes away 3/5 statement.
15. States that race cannot be a qualification for voting- African American.
16. Created income tax.
17. Describes the election of senator to congress- direct elections.
18. Bans manufacture, sale, or transportation of any alcohol in the US- prohibition.
19. Gives Women the right to vote in elections in 1920.
20. Describes the process between the election and when the new president is officially takes office in January 20th which used to be March 20th.
21. Erases the 18th amendment or repeals it- the prohibition of alcohol in 1933.
22. Limits a president to 2 terms of office- 8 years.
23. Presidential vote of District of Columbia.
24. Forbids Poll Tax.
25. Presidential Disability and Succession.
26. Voting age is set at 18 years old.
27. Limiting Congressional Pay Increase.

A large number of cases fit this description, since the Supreme Court has taken an active role in defining the limits of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. The following are a selection of 4th Amendment precedents:

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990) upheld the use of sobriety traffic checkpoints; however, Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 (2001) held that this rule does not extend to checkpoints designed to search for drugs, because the search is too generalized. In Edmund, the search was confined to the use of drug-sniffing dogs (which is legal if the car is lawfully stopped) and outside visual check.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991) held that evidence obtained during random bus searches, if conduct with the passengers' consent (even if the passenger feels compelled by circumstances to agree), is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983) held that police cannot hold someone without probable cause, and any evidence found during the detention is obtained illegally and may not be used as evidence, even if the person appears to agree to the search.

Oliver v. United States, 466 US 170 (1984) held that open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if they are fenced and marked with no trespassing signs.

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366 (1993) held that drugs detected by touch during a routine patdown can be used as evidence, but only if they were found in an area that might logically conceal a weapon.

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 US 33 (1996) held that a lawfully detained defendant does not need to be told explicitly that he or she is "free to go" before they can voluntarily agree to a search and seizure. Conviction on drug charges also upheld, despite defendant being stopped for another cause (speeding).

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005) held that drug-sniffing dogs may be used during routine traffic stops (but not at checkpoints).

Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 (2000) held that a person has a legal expectation of privacy if their luggage is stored in a compartment (referring to a bus or other public transportation), and that any police manipulation of that luggage constitutes illegal search and seizure.

New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981) held that police can search the passenger compartment of a stopped car and any containers found inside it as part of the valid arrest of any of the vehicle's occupants.

Pennsylvania v. LaBron, 518 US 938 (1993) held that police do not need to obtain a search warrant for a vehicle if the vehicle is capable of leaving the scene, even if there is time to obtain a search warrant.

Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 US 295 (1999) held that police can search a passenger's belongings inside a car if they already have probable cause to search the car.

Thornton v. United States, 541 US 615 (2004) held that police may search the passenger compartment of a suspect's car, even if their first contact with the person occurs after he or she leaves the car.

California v. Acevedo, 500 US 565 (1991) held that police can conduct a warrantless search of a paper bag in the trunk of a car if they have probable cause to believe the bag contains drugs.

California v. Carney, 471 US 386 (1985) held that police can conduct a warrantless search of a motor home (RV) if they have probable cause.

United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 US 579 (1983) held that customs officials may conduct warrantless searches of boats pursuant to Title 19 USC §1581(a).

California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 (1986) held that police may take unaided aerial photographs of the area immediately surrounding a home using a private plane or helicopter as long as they are in public airspace.

Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 (1989) held that police do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

Arizona v. Gant, (slip opinion) (2008) held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest, and without a warrant, only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search, or if the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. (Compare with the decision in Belton; Gant narrows the exception).

Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 (2001) held that use of a thermal imaging device to detect grow lights being used inside a house for cultivating marijuana is a Fourth Amendment violation and requires a warrant.

Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 (1990) held that an anonymous tip as corroborated by independent investigation, is sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.

Whren v. United States, 517 US 806 (1996) upheld the conviction on drug possession charges of two individuals who were pulled over because police became suspicious when they sat too long at a stoplight. Defendants claimed there was no probable cause to stop them. The Court ruled that the temporary detention of a motorist does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizure, "even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective."

Colorado v. Bertin, 479 US 367 (1987) held that contraband discovered in the process of inventorying an impounded car is lawful, and the items can be used as evidence in court.

Murray v. United States, 487 US 533 (1988) FDA agents observed suspicious activity occurring in and around a warehouse, with numerous vehicles driving into the warehouse and exiting a few minutes later. Two vehicles were stopped and the occupants were arrested for marijuana possession. After everyone left the warehouse, the DEA agents broke in, observed 270 bales of marijuana, then left to obtain a search warrant. They did not inform the magistrate of the break-in when requesting the warrant. The lower courts hed the warrant was invalid because the agents hadn't been forthcoming about entering the building prior to requesting the warrant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment does not preclude admission of evidence discovered in an illegal, warrantless search if the same evidence is discovered later using a warrant.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325 (1985) held that public school searches do not require warrants as long as there is reasonable cause tot suspect illegal activity of the presence of contraband.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983) overturned the landmark decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, (1969), and replaced the Aguilar-Spinelli Test that gives little weight to confidential informant or anonymous tips when granting search warrants with a "totality of the circumstances" test.

United States v. Leon, 468 US 497 (1984) Established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule that held evidence procured using defective warrants issued in error using insufficient probable clause could be used in court if the police had acted on the warrant in good faith (believed it was valid).

United States v. Santana, 427 US 38 (1976) held that a warrantless arrest inside the suspect's home was justified because the suspect was standing in a doorway when police approached. Since she was in full public view, she had no expectation of privacy. Retreating inside the house did not trigger Fourth Amendment protection because the arrest had been set in motion in a "public place."

Much of the case law permitting warrantless entry under exigent circumstances is determined by lower federal and state decisions, and is beyond the scope of discussion here, due to the level of expertise and detail involved in the explanation. The subject is discussed in detail in law enforcement training manuals.

What I think you mean is which parts have been made applicable to the states; the Bill of Rights was always applicable to the National Government.

The following are the earliest U.S. Supreme Court cases declaring the specific sections of the Bill of Rights to be applicable to the States, and the year (in parenthesis) that the court decided the case.

First Amendment - Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Second Amendment - McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010)

The Supreme Court has never heard a case involving the third Amendment

Fourth Amenment - Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Fifth Amendment - Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)

Sixth Amendment - In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)

Seventh Amendment - The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 274 (1869)

Eighth Amendment - Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

The Ninth Amendment originally applied to the states as it makes that which isn't granted to the federal government a states right or a right of the people.

The Tenth Amendment originally applied to the states as it gives each state immunity from being sued in other courts, with some exceptions.

Sorry, I won't even attempt to to decipoher the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Brilliant legal minds on both sides of the argument argue their points persuasively and have yet come to no conclusion.

That being said, it is my personal opinion that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the rights of individual citizens to carry arms.

The Constitution is the basis for all laws in the US.

Any laws, be they federal, state or local, that conflict with the Constitution will be struck down (found "unconstitutional").

It establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the national government and the methods of achieving them. Previously, the nation's leaders had established an alliance among the states under the Articles of Confederation. But the Congress created by the Articles lacked the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems. (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/constitution/)

The constitution institutes the powers of the government, as well as creating limitations on that same power. The system of three houses was designed to prevent any one section (the judicial, the legislative, or the executive) from gaining too much power. In addition, specific rights were granted to the people and the states, and prohibited from government interference.

The Constitution itself was developed in an environment where the Articles of Confederation were found to create too weak of a government, which was unable to provide for a common defense, and also unable to act out its duties, or levy taxes.

However, after a series of rebellions against such a weak government (a confederation of states) that was incapable of being dealt with effectively, it was decided something new was required.

After a good bit of debate (see the Federalist Papers) the constitution was laid out by representatives of the several states, and debated further for ratification. A good many states were dubious about the powers of such a government (the antifederalists) and a compromise was reached in order to limit the powers and abuses of such a government.

The government itself was denied police powers, as well as having strict limitations placed upon what powers could or could not be seized from the state governments. Further limitations were placed on the federal government in varieties of laws that could be instituted.

This did not go far enough, however, for the antifederalists, who wanted an enumeration of rights that could not be limited by the federal government. The antifederalists felt that without that enumeration, that the federal government would start to become tyrannical, by nature, over time.

Alexander Hamilton argued against this bill of rights (in Federalist 44) on the grounds that he did not feel that these rights need be enumerated, as it was implying that the people were giving up specific rights, in order to gain the protection of the constitution.

The antifederalists disagreed.

Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison felt that if they could not guarantee all rights, at least they could guarantee those that would not allow the growth of tyranny.

Hence the freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

To preserve these rights, the second amendment was put into place. In the words of James Madison:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"

This was followed in May 2, 1792 with the Militia act, which created the powers of the US government for a standing army, as well as instituting a system by which all persons of ages 17-45 were required to purchase, and maintain the best possible military firearm, and maintain powder and ball. This act was finally superceded by the Dick Act of 1903, defining the militia as an organized militia (the national guard) and the unorganized (the people themselves).

Each of the original 'bill of rights' amendments were designed not only to preserve and enumerate the rights, but to prohibit abridgement of those rights, and to address problems seen within the British parliamentary procedure, and problems associated with unrestricted power.

Bills of attainder (or bills of tainting) were acts that were used by the British government to declare a class of outlaws, or declare that due to the actions of a person, without trial, that they were tainted, their property and rights (and often life) were forfeit, and that their bloodline was often tainted for several generations, and unable to own land or hold office.

Ex-post-facto laws were prohibited due to the political habit of the Parliament of creating laws to attack people that they felt were criminals, by making an action that they had done sometime in the past criminal, then using the bills of attainder to destroy them.

The searches and siezures were further limited, via the power of habeus corpus, and the limitations against self-incrimination. In the Colonial periods, a British officer could easily seize anything that they wanted, as could their agents. Property, chattel, and money were fair game by writ.

And bills of attainder were used if they attempted to resist.

The importance of the constitution isn't so much the powers that it vests in the Federal government, it is in the limitations which it places upon the actions of that government. The ultimate importance is not solely as a contract between the Several States, and the government, forming a nation, as much as it is an agreement between the People and the government, because it was realized that the people formed the several states, and gave up the power to the government, and that all such power ultimately derived from, and was supported by the people, and recognition of their rights and privileges in a civil society.

Ultimately, it is the contract by which we give up specific freedoms, in order to retain other more important ones, and by which the government promised not to abridge specific freedoms, or make any law regarding their expression.

Under the Fourteenth amendment, the rights restricted from the Federal Government were also restricted from abridgement by the states.

And it is this document that our congressmen, our president, and our military are sworn to uphold and protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to swear true allegiance to the same, above all other oaths.

The Tenth Amendment grants non-specific powers to the States and to the people.

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."

• Freedom to establish a religion or practice a religion. (This means that the government cannot establish one official religion.)
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of press (i.e. publishing of news and opinions)
• Freedom to assemble (i.e. protest)
• Freedom to petition the government for redress of greivances

Here is the actual text of 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."