# data[].attributes.body
First Amendment--Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969

# data[].attributes.body
The school did violate the students’ rights.  Non-disruptive, passive, symbolic speech cannot be censored just because it makes others uncomfortable.  The symbolic wearing of armbands could not be shown to interfere with school discipline.

# data[].attributes.headline
Example:                            Tinker V. Des Moines--1969:

# data[].attributes.subject
Example:                            Tinker V. Des Moines--1969:

# data[].attributes.body
Three public school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Hearing about their plan to wear the armbands, the school district created a policy forbidding armbands.  The three students wore the armbands anyway, and they were suspended from school.  They sued the district for violating their 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

# data[].attributes.body
You have total freedom to express your religion, believes and to make a friendly protest.

# data[].attributes.body
people have the right to bear arms and a militia is necessary in a state of necessity.

# data[].attributes.body
during time of war and during time of peace no soldier should be housed in your household without your permission or a prescribed law.

# data[].attributes.body
people have the right to be safe in their houses, and shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. this should only happen with a warrant given with a probable cause.

# data[].attributes.body
No person should be kept in custody and asked questions unless they are in a court or held by land or naval forces. can't be charged with the same offence twice.

# data[].attributes.body
individuals being held in a criminal prosecution have a right to a speedy and public trial. If they don't have a lawyer one will be given to them.

# data[].attributes.body
in a common lawsuit where the value exceeds 20 dollars the right of trail by jury shall be preserved.

# data[].attributes.body
If being put in jail there should be no cruel punishment or excessive bails.

# data[].attributes.body
The articles of the constitution should never be kept from the people.

# data[].attributes.body
Anything not in the constitution is saved for the states and people.

# data[].attributes.body
second Amendment- District of Columbia v. Heller 2008

# data[].attributes.body
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered
firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may
carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires
residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock
or similar device.

# data[].attributes.body
engblom v. Carey 1979

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorporated against the states; and (3), that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who.

# data[].attributes.body
Barker v. Wingo-1971

# data[].attributes.body
specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination.

# data[].attributes.body
Handguns where not banned but it was more difficult to get them and had to keep em in sight along with a gun permit.

# data[].attributes.body
the individuals that entered the property even if they where national guard they are still accounted for as soldiers so they had to be held accountable.

# data[].attributes.body
First, the Court noted that "there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused". The Court commented on the backlog of cases, mainly in urban courts, that often enable defendants to negotiate a plea for a lesser offense. The Court also noted that persons released on bond had the opportunity to commit further crimes,[4] "the longer an accused is free awaiting trial, the more tempting becomes his opportunity to jump bail and escape", and that "delay between arrest and punishment may have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation." The Court also noted that if the accused cannot make bail, that too can make rehabilitation difficult, that a lengthy pre-trial detention can be costly, and that "society loses wages which might have been earned, and it must often support families of incarcerated breadwinners."[5]

Second, the Court noted that "deprivation of the right may work to the accused's advantage." As the time between arrest and trial lengthens, witnesses may become unavailable and/or their memories fade; if the witnesses were for the prosecution the case may be seriously weakened (as the prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).[6]

Finally, the Court noted that the concept is more vague than with other rights, in that the Court "cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.".