# data[].attributes.body
- Amendment Ten: Powers Reserved to the States
Power that is not given to the Federal Government, is meant for the States.
Why do we have this right?
So that way the states and Federal Government have some what equal power between them. And that the Federal Government is not in total control of the country.

# data[].attributes.body
- Amendment Nine: Rights Retained by the People
The Rights of the Constitution not specifically mentioned for individuals, are kept for the individuals.
Why do we have this right?
So that way people have more rights than what is listed in the Constitution and the state or government does not have total control over the people.

# data[].attributes.body
- Eighth Amendment: Bail and Punishments
The Right that prevents unjustified excessive bails, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments, long term prison time when accused of minor crimes, and inhumane prison conditions.
Why do we have this right?
So that way judges do not have so much power and people that are accused of little crimes are not dying or tortured in prison.

# data[].attributes.body
- Seventh Amendment: Civil Trial Rights
The Right to have a jury trial and a jury's fact cannot be overruled by any judge.
Why do we have this right?
So a dispute between two people is settled and the judge does not favor one person over another, so the case is fair.

# data[].attributes.body
- Sixth Amendment: Criminal Trial Rights
The Right for people accused of a crime to have a speedy trial, an impartial jury, question other people who witnessed the event, and have a lawyer.
Why do we have this right?
So that way innocent people who were accused of a crime, will not be convicted so easily. Everyone should be able to defend themselves of something they had done or not done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. During Unhinged Rant, Fox News Contributor Jokes Green New Deal Could Lead to Cannibalism

2. Schiff: There Is "Direct Evidence" of Trump Collusion With Russia

3. Why Passing the Joint Resolution Against the National Emergency Will Matter Even if It's Vetoed

4. Are Pedophiles Too Sick for Punishment?

In 2002, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that "our people's traditional belief in the right of trial by jury is in perilous decline." His successor, Justice Neil Gorsuch, agrees-and he isn't happy about it. On Tuesday, during oral arguments in United States v. Haymond, Gorsuch lambasted Congress' efforts to skirt the Constitution by empowering judges to imprison sex offenders without the safeguard of a jury. It was a remarkable defense of the Sixth Amendment that points toward a broad decision restoring the jury trial right to some of the country's most maligned defendants.

Haymond involves a federal statute that governs sentencing for certain defendants convicted of a sex offense. After completing their prison term, these offenders are placed on supervised release. If offenders violate the terms of their release, a judge can send them back to prison to serve more time for their original conviction. That's standard practice in the federal system. The statute at issue in Haymond, though, is a different beast. Under this law, a judge must sentence offenders to additional prison time-from five years to life-if they violate the terms of their release. This new sentence may go beyond what the offender's first conviction allowed. And the judge need only find proof of a violation "by a preponderance of the evidence." No jury is involved.

This scheme is, to put it mildly, quite weird. Generally, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the government must prove every element of a crime that increases a sentence to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. The law in Haymond flips this requirement on its head. It allows a judge to decide the facts herself, under a standard more lenient than the Due Process Clause typically requires. And once she has found the offender guilty, she can imprison him for much longer than his original conviction permitted.

On Tuesday, Gorsuch sounded downright shocked by this flagrant infringement of the Sixth Amendment. "Why is the government so anxious to avoid having the involvement of citizens in this process?" he asked Eric Feigin, assistant to the Solicitor General. "It would be a rather simple thing to convene a jury, wouldn't it?

"Historically," Gorsuch continued, "there's never been this kind of system before. Congress self-consciously created this system. And I guess ... I'm just struggling. I just don't understand why the government resists the involvement of a jury of a man's or woman's peers."

Gorsuch seemed rankled by the fact that Congress abolished parole for federal defendants, then sought to replace it with a draconian scheme like this one. Instead of parole, sex offenders now receive supervised release-but if they're accused of a new misdeed, they lose their right to a jury trial. And if they're found guilty (by a judge), they may be locked up for life. "We had parole systems previously," Gorsuch said, "and Congress chose to abandon that system. And why doesn't that choice have consequences? And why isn't one of those consequences the jury right?"

As usual, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was right at Gorsuch side defending the Sixth Amendment. "Is there any other area of the law in which we permit imprisonment by a preponderance of the evidence?" Sotomayor asked Feigin. "I'm trying to figure out why a judge now gets to ... find by a preponderance of the evidence, after you've been sentenced to the five years, that we really should have given you eight years." If "a jury didn't find facts sufficient to give him the additional years," how can that sentence possibly be constitutional?

The answer is that it isn't. And on Tuesday, a clear majority of the court seemed prepared to rule as much, either striking down the scheme altogether or compelling the government to prove each new offense to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be an important victory for the Sixth Amendment, and an affirmation that the government cannot lock away sex offenders for life without a jury's input. True, it might make prosecutors' jobs a bit more difficult. As Scalia wrote in 2003, however, the jury trial "has never been efficient"-but "it has always been free."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gorsuch and Sotomayor Team Up Yet Again in Defense of the Sixth Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During Unhinged Rant, Fox News Contributor Jokes Green New Deal Could Lead to Cannibalism Schiff: There Is "Direct Evidence" of Trump Collusion With Russia Why Passing the Joint Resolution Against the National Emergency Will Matter Even if It's Vetoed Are Pedophiles Too Sick for Punishment?

# data[].attributes.body
- Fifth Amendment: Legal Rights
The Right for people accused of a crime to a grand jury hearing that decides if certain evidence is justified. People are protected from double jeopardy if they are not guilty of that crime. Defendants are protected from self-incrimination. People are innocent until proven guilty. And finally the government needs to pay a fair price if they want to do something to the people's private property.
-self incrimination: exposing yourself to make you look guilty.
-defendants: people who were sued in a civil case.

Why do we have this right?
So people accused of crimes are actually able to defend themselves and they don't have to forcibly give in to guilt.

# data[].attributes.body
- Fourth Amendment: Searches and Seizures
The Right that protects your property from unjustified searches and seizures from other people. Unless you did something bad to other property, then the judge will issue a warrant.
Why do we have this right?
So that way no people, who think they are entitled, claim your property without a good reason too, same thing with the police.

# data[].attributes.body
- Third Amendment: Quartering Troops in Homes
Soldiers are not allowed to be housed without the owners consent and in times of peace and war. They are allowed to enter only with owners consent or if Congress makes a law about it.
Why do we have this right?
So no soldiers take up space in our homes and we don't have to risk soldiers stealing our stuff. There is no need for soldiers to be cared for during times of peace.

# data[].attributes.body
- Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms
The Right to own a gun without someone or the government infringing it, unless you did something illegal with your gun.
Why do we have this right?
So that way we are able to defend ourselves from other people and protect our families. We also keep the old American tradition of shooting with the 2nd Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.body
- The Right to Worship Freely
The Right to contribute to your religion without the government treating you different because of your religion.
- The Right to Free Speech and Press
The Right to say anything you want about the government or someone without slandering them or making a libel about them.

slander: a false statement that is spoken that is damaging to someone's reputation.

libel: a published false statement, like a newspaper, that is damaging to one's reputation.

- The Right to Assemble and Petition
The Right to group together and march peacefully or write a paper that suggests the government changes something, with people voting on your side.

Why do we have these rights?
These rights allow people to practice their religion without
government interference and allows people to speak against the government, without libel. Without these rights, our country would be a dictatorship, meaning no one is allowed to speak against the government.