# data[].attributes.body
state - reserved powers

# data[].attributes.body
rules of construction of constitution

# data[].attributes.body
no cruel and unusual punishment. no excessive bail required

# data[].attributes.body
right to a trial by jury. Civil case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amendment 7 was proposed September 25th 1789, The seventh... by Mae Carter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOUCH this image to discover its story. Image tagging powered by ThingLink

# data[].attributes.body
right to a speedy trial. Jury trial for a criminal case

# data[].attributes.body
right of search and seizure regulated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means to me that police can not go in to your house without permission from the court. How this is helpful in life is because when you don't want police to come into your house they cant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amendment 4 - The U.S. Constitution By Arianna

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

# data[].attributes.body
quartering soldiers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amendment 3: Quartering Soldiers by Tabyus Rodgers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOUCH this image to discover its story. Image tagging powered by ThingLink

# data[].attributes.body
right to bear arms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Details

Description

On the final day of its 2008 term, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision striking down the District of Columbia's stringent gun control laws as a violation of the Second Amendment. Reversing almost seventy years of settled precedent, the high court reinterpreted the meaning of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" to affirm an individual right to own a gun in the home for purposes of self-defense. The landmark ruling not only opened a new chapter in the contentious history of gun rights and gun control but also revealed both the strengths and problems of originalist constitutional theory and jurisprudence.

This volume brings together some of the best scholarship on the Heller case, with essays by legal scholars and historians representing a range of ideological viewpoints and applying different interpretive frameworks. Following the editors' introduction, which describes the issues involved and the arguments on each side, the essays are organized into four sections. The first includes two of the most important historical briefs filed in the case, while the second offers different views of the role of originalist theory. Section three presents opposing interpretations of the ruling and its relationship to modern constitutional doctrine. The final section explores historical research post-Heller, including new findings on patterns of gun ownership in colonial and Revolutionary America.

In addition to the editors, contributors include Nelson Lund, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Jack Rakove, Reva B. Siegel, Cass R. Sunstein, Kevin M. Sweeney, and J. Harvie Wilkinson III.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the final day of its 2008 term, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision striking down the District of Columbia's stringent gun control laws as a violation of the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
protection against double jeopardy. No self-incrimination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Amendment Cartoons and Comics - funny pictures from CartoonStock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifth Amendment funny cartoons from CartoonStock directory - the world's largest on-line collection of cartoons and comics.

# data[].attributes.body
freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are few things that irritate me as much as willful ignorance, and that's exactly what this is.

Back in November, as protests burst out on the University of Missouri campus, a student journalist named Tim Tai set out to cover the demonstration. He was, however, met with some resistance from protesters.

To be quite clear, the demonstrators and faculty member(s) blocking his view were being extremely rude and were asserting rights they didn't have (they had no power to block him from a public space on a public campus). And it would have been great had this been written up for what it was: a mess.

Instead, what followed was a flurry of thinkpieces chastising the students (as a whole... like... all the protesters) and claiming that they had somehow infringed on Mr. Tai's first amendment rights.

"[Mizzou professor Brian Kratzer] says he has witnessed what he's called an 'a la carte' approach to the First Amendment, in which some rights were observed and others ignored.

"At the beginning, as one of the leading black student groups started to plan the protests, journalists who arrived at open meetings on campus were told to put down their cameras and close their notebooks. Such journalistic tools would inhibit free conversation, they were told. One student leader who ultimately went on a hunger strike forged a cordial relationship with a photographer who captured many key moments.

"Faculty members who joined the movement were advised by email and Twitter not to talk to reporters but to refer inquiries to one or two protest leaders. By the time the protests emerged on the Carnahan Quad, demonstrators sought to squash the right of student reporters and journalists to document their cause. They did it with signs saying 'No Media.' They did so with words of warning, with implied menace; even, in some cases, shoving reporters away from a campus quad where they had every right to operate."

The problem is that no one's First Amendment rights were violated. It's the media's right to show up, to film and report without being arrested for doing so; it's not their right to compel people into making that reporting easy or even convenient. Students were within their rights to ask journalists not to film (journalists didn't have to listen). The First Amendment doesn't mean you need to smile and play along if a reporter shoves a camera in your face.

I saw a similar thing happen recently regarding the protests against Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Except, again, no one's First Amendment rights were being violated. Sure, someone yelling "Fuck your press rights!" in response to someone asserting "press rights" they didn't actually have is probably a bit rude, but if anything, that's an expression of someone's free speech, not a suppression of it.
There's a difference between being rude and infringing on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Want to see someone's speech being suppressed? How about this?

NPR's Sarah McCammon tweeted a photo from a recent Donald Trump rally. Journalists there to cover a public figure whose words are (sadly) relevant to the country's public interest, were put in pens by the Secret Service, a government agency.

And while maybe neither event is an example of free speech being truly violated, which one do you think the media took more issue with?

The college kids, of course. Because... kids! Get off my lawn!

Hey, it makes for good fodder!

Free speech and tolerance does not mean someone needs to listen to you or let you photograph them.

It just doesn't. You want to go up to someone and yell or shove a camera in their face, go for it. You've every right to. The other person has the right to tell you off for it, walk away, or just not listen.

My hope for 2016 is that we stop misrepresenting actions for the sake of being readable. Until Congress tries to pass a law abridging the right to publish reported material (they won't, don't worry), the First Amendment is safe and sound. Stop acting otherwise. Can you do that for me, media?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First Amendment Right to not understand the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are few things that irritate me as much as willful ignorance, and that's exactly what this is. Back in November, as protests burst out on the University of Missouri campus, a student journalist named Tim Tai set out to cover the demonstration. He was, however, met with some resistance from protesters.