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 fifth amendment created?
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ''No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' It was created to protect the rights of individuals against tyrannical government, just as are all of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (The Bill of Rights).
What are some of the US Supreme Court's cases about the First Amendment?
The First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution that help protect the rights of citizens and the states. There have been many Supreme Court cases interpreting the degree of freedom and protection afforded to people balanced against the interests of the government.
Amendment I"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."
Schenck v. United States, (1919), was the first real challenge to laws impinging on First Amendment guarantees. Charles Schenck, a member of the Communist party, was prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck mailed pamphlets to young men urging them to resist WW I recruitment efforts, which the Court held interfered with the United States' ability to build its military. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in Schenck, instituted the "clear and present danger" doctrine that created the first legitimized exception to this constitutional freedom.
Case Citation:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Examples of Other First Amendment cases
Establishment clause: (cannot teach religion in public schools): Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947)
Free exercise of religion: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940)
Freedom of speech: Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925)
Freedom of the press: Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931)
Freedom of assembly: DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353 (1937)
Expressive association (implied right): NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
Tennessee v. Garner
What is the provision of the fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights?
The Fourth Amendment means that no one can search you, your home, or your personal property without a warrant, unless their reason is justified. (reasonable)
There are exceptions to the "personal" extent of the amendment, such as suspicious activity, commission of a crime, or making threats against others. Your home may be entered without a warrant only if circumstances lead the police to believe that someone is in imminent danger, or is becoming the victim of a violent crime.
How has the supreme court interpreted the sixth amendment guarantee of a speedy trial?
Courts are supposed to first consider how long of a delay there has been, and if the delay is long enough to make it a possible constitutional violation, THEN the next step is for the Court to consider the reasons for the delay and whose fault it was. If there was a long delay but it was due to the Defendant not being ready while the government was ready to prosecute, this Defendant probably has not had his rights violated. But if the defendant was ready and especially if the Defendant asked for a speedy trial and announced "ready" at prior court appearances, then any delay is going to be viewed as the State's problem.
Finally, the Court needs to look at whether there was any "prejudice" to the Defendant. Prejudice means that it's harder for him to defend himself from the charges against him now than it would have been if he had his trial months or years ago. Sometimes prejudice can be presumed if the delay is really long and not excused for good cause, but generally the Defendant will want to show that certain evidence or testimony that he expected to use for his side is no longer available now, but it was available earlier.
What is the historical context of the second amendment?
The Second Amendment is an amendment that was added to the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791. The background of this amendment was to allow the population to bear and keep arms.
How many amendment to constitution part of the bill of rights?
First 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights.
What would happen to the US if the first amendment to the bill of rights was taken away?
We could not express inner thoughts about life in general and would be suppressed by our government.
What are the first ten amendments to the constitution called and when were the amendments ratified?
They're called the Bill of Rights, and they're based on a desire by the people to make sure the government didn't grow too powerful or oppress the people.
Name one of the rights from the 1st amendment?
freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
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.
