# data[].attributes.body
Look up the Bill of Rights and copy the wording

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
Aost all of these rights can be controversial or be interpreted in different ways. Explain how your right can have different interpretationslm

# data[].attributes.body
Use your own words to explain what right(s) this amendment really grants us

# data[].attributes.body
Describe a real case where the crux of this right was challenged in court

# data[].attributes.body
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

# data[].attributes.body
The 8th amendment talks about how criminals should be treated. The government can't make any cruel or odd punishment to an individual, for example a really expensive bail.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
The terms "cruel and unusual" are subjective and can be interpreted different ways. For example the death penalty is legal in some states, while other states find it cruel and unusual.

# data[].attributes.body
Weems v. United States, 1910

Paul Weems, who worked at the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation, was convicted for falsification of documents. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and subjected to hard labor. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence because it did not reflect the principle of proportionality. In other words, it violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.

# data[].attributes.headline
By: Noah Werbinski, Sean Kelly, Bondet Batsford, Noel Kang

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Noah Werbinski, Sean Kelly, Bondet Batsford, Noel Kang

# data[].attributes.headline
By: Kelsey Pepito, Emily Gehrlein-Allen 

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Kelsey Pepito, Emily Gehrlein-Allen 

# data[].attributes.body
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

# data[].attributes.body
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

# data[].attributes.body
The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections to people accused of crimes, such as the right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury in criminal cases, and to be informed of criminal charges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or her own witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment is not as relevant today as it was when it was first ratified but It could possibly be used to make law enforcers leave a person's home.

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment IV
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
The Sixth Amendment ensures the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to an unbiased jury, the right to a public trial without undue delay, the right to counsel, and the right to know the identity of your accusers.

# data[].attributes.body
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.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech

# data[].attributes.body
Freedoms concerning any religion

# data[].attributes.body
The right to petition

# data[].attributes.body
Even when the accused has their own lawyer, judges and witnesses can develop slight bias through news on social media.  Witnesses can also lie or change the story of events in favor of one side.

# data[].attributes.body
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.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial

# data[].attributes.body
Most people interpret this right as protection from unauthorized police searches and seizures, but it does not necessarily go against all searches. Needing a search warrant also makes it harder for law enforcement to gather evidence, make arrests, and it delays investigations. Evidence gathered during an illegal search cannot be used in court.

# data[].attributes.body
The first amendment grants individuals the freedom of faith, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
In general, the first amendment has always been subjected to controversy and different interpretations, especially the free speech section. While the government or governmental institutions are not able to detain or censor you over your speech, this does not transfer over to institutions or companies that are not involved with the government.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
The fifth amendment can be interpreted as protection from being compelled by the government to share personal information. People often misinterpret the 5th amendment for the ability to refuse to answer any questions from a Department detective or investigator. But you can only refuse without penalty if you or a criminal defense attorney representing you states that you are declaring your 5th amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the fourth Amendment is to ensure that people do not get searched and seized by law enforcement unreasonably and without a warrant.

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment protects people from soldiers entering and inhabiting a home without the owners consent. It is prohibited during peacetime

# data[].attributes.body
An example of a case where people took the amendment to far is when people stormed the capital and broke in and destroyed things. They claimed that they had the right to protest, but the protest was not peacefully and broke many laws.

# data[].attributes.body
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

# data[].attributes.body
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

# data[].attributes.body
In a case in 2015, a man's house was raided by municipal police officers and the man sued them for quartering in his home. The third amendment disproved the lawsuit and the case was dropped.

# data[].attributes.body
The right to a grand jury in criminal cases and forbids double jeopardy and gives protection against self-incrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Gideon vs. Wainwright case in 1963, a man was convicted in Florida but denied an attorney. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who agreed that the defendant's 6th Amendment right had been denied.

# data[].attributes.body
Miranda vs. Arizona is an important example of self-incrimination. The case involved a man named Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for theft and a twenty-year prison sentence. Miranda confessed that he had kidnapped and raped a woman a few days earlier. Miranda was unaware that he was allowed to have an attorney present during questioning because he was never told he could. Miranda was sentenced to prison for twenty years. After the supreme court eventually ruled that the right not to incriminate oneself is essential, they introduced the fifth amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The second amendment allows individuals to lawfully posses and use firearms.

# data[].attributes.body
The 7th Amendment granted the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
This can be controversial because juries can have some prejudice against the accused, and some people also believe that civil juries aren't qualified to judge legal matters.

# data[].attributes.body
The 7th amendment grants the people, in civil cases, the right to a trial by jury.

# data[].attributes.body
Curtis V Loether
Curtis brought civil rights action under section 812 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 claiming that Loether and others who were white refused to rent an apartment to her because of her race. The district court held that a jury trial was not authorized and denied a jury trial.

# data[].attributes.body
LANGE v. CALIFORNIA is an important example of a misunderstanding of probable cause. It involved a cause of an intoxicated individual being pulled over with probable cause to detain by refusing to pull over for a short distance at his home. The individual being incarcerated argued that he did not have a warrant to enter his home and confront him. This is where the fourth amendment was introduced.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
Because these rights give a lot of power to the people, the Federalists thought that the 9th amendment took away too much power from the government.

# data[].attributes.body
In layman's terms, it means that any rights not listed in the constitution are left up to the people and the states. This was because they knew that listing all the rights would be impossible so they encompassed them in the 9th amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
The 10th amendment can be interpreted in ways such as warning us "against using a list of rights infer powers in the national government that were not granted." The 10th amendment encourages that power should be given to the state. This is a controversial amendment because some states, for example, have abortion banned and others don't.

# data[].attributes.body
The second amendment is one of the most controversial amendments because many believe it is outdated. Firearms are dangerous weapons and many people don't think we should be allowed to possess them due to the rise in gun violence. Some also think that the founding fathers didn't anticipate the major advance in firearms and that the amendment was written only accounting for the technology of the time.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)

This case was about a federal employee accused of violation the Hatch act. The Hatch act prohibits most employees of the executive branch of the federal government from engaging certain political activities. He argued that this violated the 9th amendment, to no avail.

# data[].attributes.body
The 10th Amendment allows certain decisions to be determined by the state government rather than the US National Government. The power in excess of the federal government or the restricted power of the states will go to the people, amendments apply to every US citizen. The power will be passed down to the states. (the states will make the decision)

# data[].attributes.body
On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the Roe vs. Wade ruling. Which banned Abortion, however, this ban was passed down to the states to make the decision if Abortions would be banned in their state or not. The ban on abortion was passed down to the states because of the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States).  The 10th amendment was designed to protect a state government decision. So the 10th amendment allows states to legalize abortions (allow abortions to exist) and allows states to make abortions illegal.

# data[].attributes.body
The District of Columbia v. Heller was in 2008 it was a lawsuit from private gun owners against the District of Columbia.  The importance of this case was that it was the first time that the Supreme Court explicitly interpreted the Second Amendment since its addition to the United States Constitution.  They established that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to gun ownership.