Bill of Rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution garantees "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press."

This amendment was one of the original ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights and were added to the Constitution before it was even ratified by the states.

The First Amendment does protect the press from censorship, but that does not mean that the press can print whatever they wish to print. The government is able to censor the press if the press is going to publish some information that would be a threat to national security. An example of such a thing that the government would be allowed to censor would be if the press was going to print the codes to release the nuclear bombs that the U.S. government has. However, this is an extreme example and it is only in very rare cases that the government needs to utilize this power.

The major gaurantee that the press has from their protection under the First Amendment is that they can say bad things about politicians and the government in gerenal (as long as it does not fall under libel or slander), without being punished by the government for their actions.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution deals with the rights of a person who is charged with a crime. An individual is to be afforded a speedy public trial by an impartial jury which is convened in the locale that has jurisdiction, and whose proceedings shall include a reading (specification) of the charges and the legal basis (cause) for them as well as the right to face any witness(es) against him, the right to compel (by subpoena) the testimony of any witness(es) in his favor, and the right to defense counsel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text The reason the Sixth Amendment was written into the Constitution was to protect the individual rights (liberties) of anyone accused of a crime by assuring due process to those who might be accused or charged. Many governments or regimes in power around the world at the time that this was written could (and did) imprison individuals indeterminately without any formal (or even informal) charges being pressed against them. The thoughtful men who drafted the Constitution and, in particular, the Sixth Amendment were well aware of that brand of injustice, and did not want something so patently unfair to be possible in the United States. In this day and age, we don't see too many situations where individuals are deprived of basic rights under the rule of law, do we....

Why are freedoms in the First Amendment important for people in a democracy?

Additions to the constitution are called amendments. The first amendment was :

Under the Articles of Confederation, only the national government could

There have been many cases that have been relevant to the 8th amendment. Some of the more well know are Atkins VS Virginia in 1998, Gregg VS Georgia in 1976 and Weems VS United States in 1910.

This is a very broad question, and I regret that this will be at best a condensed answer and at worst a misrepresentation of very well thought out positions, but some of the opposing viewpoints are:

First Amendment - Debate over this amendment is generally not partisan and usually centers around good taste (i.e. should pornography or explicit or subversive works be banned or censored) or damage to the greater good (i.e. what right do people have to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if it endangers the public.) Recently debate regarding the free practice of religion in the public sphere has veered into partisan lines. Conservatives insist on the freedom to display religious paraphernalia in the public sphere when it is Christian (i.e. the Ten Commandments on a courtroom steps or a nativity scene outside a federal building) but in a striking display of hypocrisy insist that minority displays of worship (i.e. building a Muslim community center near Ground Zero) be curtailed by good taste. Liberals generally insist that all religion be taken out of the sphere of government, including the above examples, and in more extreme cases attempting to eliminate "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the like.

Second Amendment - Conservatives generally believe that this amendment defends the right of all citizens to own any form of weapon with limited regulations or controls, or in extreme cases with no limitations whatsoever. Liberals generally believe that the right of citizens to own weapons is curtailed by the violence that can be inflicted without regulation - i.e. cop-killing automatic weapons should be banned and there should be limits on allowing children or felons access to weapons or the ability to conceal weapons. In extreme cases liberals may interpret this amendment as allowing only for the National Guard to hold weapons, and that private citizens are indeed not guaranteed the right to bear arms.

Fourth Amendment - This is increasingly being seen as a matter of national defense. In general, conservatives believe that increasingly draconian methods of search and seizure (i.e. warrantless wiretapping) are necessary and wise to defend against terrorist attacks while liberals tend to believe that civil liberties are far more important to the functioning of a society than personal safety, even if it endangers the homeland.

Sixth and Seventh Amendments - Similar to the 4th, conservatives may insist on opposing due process, for instance extraordinary rendition or the keeping of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or unmarked overseas prisons in order to keep the homeland safe, while liberals will insist that jurisprudence is more important than safety.

Eighth Amendment - Recently back in the news in regards to the debate over the procedure known as "waterboarding" and whether that constitutes torture. Again, conservatives will insist that either waterboarding is not torture or that if it is, such torture is necessary to protect the United States while liberals will argue that waterboarding is clearly torture and thus banned by the 8th Amendment.

Tenth Amendment - In recent conservative doctrine this amendment is often used as a cudgel to deflect federal laws regarding gay marriage or taxes, with the argument that such matters are best left to the states. Liberals often oppose the notion that states have the right to defy federal law. This divide was also made recently apparent in the Arizona Immigration Law.

Yes. Children have rights in all of the countries that signed the International Convention on the rights of the child. The Unicef website has a site deicated to this document located at http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

This is an Open University question for ETMA02 Whoever posted this is a CHEAT!!!!!! Ive reported you to the course team as its not fair on those who are trying hard.

Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment.

It protects our unalienable rights as a citizen, because every person has privileges (rights) that cannot be taken away, and those rights help us get through society and the rest of our life. If we didn't have the bill of rights, it would be an unsafe, unfair, and unjust country to live in (referring to the United States).

"it is not the breaking of a man's doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion oh his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense" Quote from Justice Joseph P. Bradley hope this helps!

the 5 freedoms are freedom of press. freedom of speech. freedom of religion. freedom of Assembly and freedom of petition

The right to a speedy trial, on the surface, seems inconsequential. But it is a vital civil right written to ensure a suspect does not languish behind bars for years while waiting to go to trial. All suspects are innocent until proven otherwise and it violates that right to hold them indefinatly. Law enforcement and prosecutors try to have sufficient evidence before an arrest is made. After arrest it is usually the the other side that drag their feet, buying time to build a defense.

First of all, the 2nd amendment is the right for people to purchase or have a gun. James Madison the fourth president of the United States introduced the 2nd amendment to concern over a federal military coup and so people can protect themselves from enemys.

All powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are allocated to the States, unless the Constitution prohibits those powers from the States, in which case the power remains a "natural right" of the citizenry.

In short, for a specific Power:

(1) the Federal government can exercise it if the Constitution says it belongs to the Federal government.

(2) if the power isn't directly given to the Federal Government, then the State has it

(3) however, if the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power, and does not give it to the Federal government, then that power remains a "reserved" right of the people - that is, the people retain this power, and it cannot be modified or challenged by the Federal or State government.

The 1st amendment act covers a few different thing. The 1st amendment covers free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Well cops and stuff really can't arrest them unless they do something wrong or if they are in the middle of handling another crime and happen to run across something that the KKK are doing that is bad.

first