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
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.
What were the 27 amendments of the Bill of Rights?
The 27 amendments are:
- Freedom of Religion,press,assembly,petition,and speech.
- Right to bear arms.
- Limits on Quartering Soldiers.
- Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Protection of self-incrimination-Due process- double jeopardy-pardon-eminent domain- pay-grand jury.
- Right to a fair and speedy trial- Jury Evidence-Lawyer-Witness- right to an attorney.
- Right to a jury of your peers- Civil cases law suits.
- Forbids cruel or unusual punishment- no torture, forced confession-excessive fines.
- Escape clause. (no restriction on unenumerated rights)
- Retention of rights by the States and People not otherwise given to the Federal Government
- Explains what happens for a citizen of one state to sue another state - National government solves problems.
- Explains process of electing our president- vice president.
- Slavery is officially ended.
- Describes the civil rights of each citizen, takes away 3/5 statement.
- States that race cannot be a qualification for voting- African American.
- Created income tax.
- Describes the election of senator to congress- direct elections.
- Bans manufacture, sale, or transportation of any alcohol in the US- prohibition.
- Gives Women the right to vote in elections in 1920.
- Describes the process between the election and when the new president is officially takes office in January 20th which used to be March 20th.
- Erases the 18th amendment or repeals it- the prohibition of alcohol in 1933.
- Limits a president to 2 terms of office- 8 years.
- Presidential vote of District of Columbia.
- Forbids Poll Tax.
- Presidential Disability and Succession.
- Voting age is set at 18 years old.
- Limiting Congressional Pay Increase.
Is the bill of rights in the beginning middle or end of the constitition?
No it is not! Because the preamble is in the beginning and it says "We they people"!!!!!
no, it says "We the people". take out the "y" silly.
Why was the Bill of Rights referred to as the Anti Federalist legacy?
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in response to Anti-Federalist fears that the new government would take away the liberties of the people and the states.
How is the bill of rights still used today?
The English Bill of Rights is still used today, you can get a copy of the constitution and read the ten amendments better know as the English Bill of Rights.
What were some weaknesses of The Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights was added on as part of the US Constitution to provide for the personal freedoms and rights of American citizens. The only real criticism of the Bill of Rights is that it is written in a very general way. This means that law makers and those who enforce the laws have to use their own discernment when applying the laws to real people and situations.
The Legislative Branch of American government is composed of?
The Congress is made up of two bodies.
1. The Senate. There are 2 people elected from each state to the Senate. They serve a total of 6 years. There are 100 Senators.
2. House of Representatives. The population of each state determines the number of House members each state has. This is determined by the census that is taken every 10 years. So, each state has a varied number of members in the House, but the House doesn't exceed the total number of 435 seats. They are elected for 2 year terms.
Together these two bodies make Congress.
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.
Our founding fathers wanted the United States to allow citizens to practice whatever religion they chose. They did not want the United States government to establish only one religion. Our founding fathers wanted the citizens of the United States to have the freedom of religious choice, so placed this requirement in the Bill of Rights. That way, the United States government could not require citizens to practice Islam, Buddhism, or any other type of religion.
Why were the Bill of Rights created?
During the time of the creation of the constitution, there were the Federalists who supported it as it had been written, and who thought there was no need for an official bill of rights because the rights were "implied." Federalists were generally wealthier and supported a strong, centralized government.
Many of the Anti-Federalists were back country farmers who favored states rights. These people feared for a government-controlled nation because they had just fought a revolution to get rid of such restrictions. They wanted to see their rights written down. In addition to farmers, there were some famous patriots like George Mason and Thomas Jefferson who believed there needed to be a Bill of Rights. And there was a large group of Americans who remembered the John Peter Zenger case, which took place in 1735: Zenger was a newspaper publisher in the New York colony who was imprisoned and nearly sentenced to death just for questioning the policies of the royal governor. The Zenger case reinforced the need to guarantee that speech would not be punished and that there would be freedom of the press.
Thus, the various groups who combined to form the Anti-Federalists refused to support and ratify the constitution until there was a Bill of Rights. This put the Federalists in a difficult position: needing support from the Anti-Federalists in order to ratify the constitution, they agreed to a compromise, and the Bill of Rights was added.
Why was the Bill of Rights added?
The Bill of Rights (Ten Amendments) were adopted because the states were promised a Bill of Rights. This was during the Ratification (approval) of the Constitution. Anti-federalists did not support the Constitution and did not Ratify it. Federalists ratified it because of their own points of view. they believed a Constitution was a good sense of power, while Anti-federalists wanted a Bill of Rights, belived that the Constitution would give the Central government too much power in the expense of the state governments. Congress did not want to destroy harmony among the states because they had promised the Anti-federalists a bill of rights. The Bill of rights was added to the Constitution in 1791 in Deleware.
Which of these documents did NOT influence the Bill of Rights-?
. Declaration of Independence
.The Bible
Which provision of the Bill of Rights has not been nationalized?
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.
