# data[].attributes.body
Look up the Bill of Rights and copy the wording for your 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
Almost 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. Try to choose as current of an issue as you can, or, one that is very famous.

# data[].attributes.body
By: Leyang Lin, Angelina Sicchio

# data[].attributes.headline
By: Alexia Nyholm-Goncalves, Avery Chang-Linenberg, Zachariah Villanueva

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Alexia Nyholm-Goncalves, Avery Chang-Linenberg, Zachariah Villanueva

# data[].attributes.headline
By: Zerach Chan, Charles Tong , Eleanor Green

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Zerach Chan, Charles Tong , Eleanor Green

# data[].attributes.headline
By: Julia Erskine, Mia Molina, Joshua Rengifo

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Julia Erskine, Mia Molina, Joshua Rengifo

# data[].attributes.body
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

# data[].attributes.body
Any civil cases have the right to be decided by a jury in court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Donovan Dooley, Jacob Upton, Emma Mulders

# data[].attributes.subject
Donovan Dooley, Jacob Upton, Emma Mulders

# 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
A way that this can be misinterpreted is that any lawsuits formed against the government do not maintain this right.

# 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.headline
By: Anuja Kamatkar, Penelope Singh, Lucas Zhang

# data[].attributes.subject
By: Anuja Kamatkar, Penelope Singh, Lucas Zhang

# 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 person charged with a crime has the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and a lawyer."

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

# 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
People may have opposing views as to what is deemed a "cruel" and "unusual" form of punishment and how to measure cruelty.

# data[].attributes.body
Any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large.

# data[].attributes.body
It protects Americans with the right to possess weapons as a form of protection for rights, property, and self.

# 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
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.body
The 8th Amendment protects people from punishments that are inappropriate for the crime committed. It also protects people from excessive bail. The people who benefit form this Amendment are criminals or people who have committed a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
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 First Amendment protects people's right to have the protection of freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, and the right to make a complaint to the government without the fear of punishment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009

# data[].attributes.subject
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009

# data[].attributes.body
Savana Redding was a 13-year-old student.  A male student reported that another girl, Marissa Glines, had given him a prescription-strength ibuprofen pill.  A search of Marissa’s day planner and pockets revealed more of the pills and some weapons.  Marissa then reported the day planner belonged to Savana, and that Savana had given her the pills.  Savana was then searched – a search which included not only her backpack and pockets, but also inside her undergarments.   She sued the school district for violating her rights.

# data[].attributes.body
That the federal government only has the powers that are assigned to them in the constitution

# data[].attributes.body
The 5th Amendment provides people with the right to a trial by jury, protects people from being charged for the same crime twice, protects people from self-incrimination, gives people the right to a fair trial, and protects people from the government taking their property without providing compensation

# data[].attributes.body
It protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by 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 First Amendment restrains only the government. The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression.

# 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
Some may interpret is as allowing private citizens to own firearms for self defense, while it could be interpreted as allowing well organized militias to own firearms. Some find this amendment to be dangerous, while others believe that it protects their personal freedom. There is a debate between civil liberty and public safety because of the 2nd amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
This could be controversial because even though it benefits the Defendant, the Accuser may feel it is not fair to them. Since this is based on evidence, you can not go off of reason or people's "quotes". For example, A person broke into someone else's house and the defendant left no evidence behind. But, the person who owns the house apparently "saw the thief running away with their car" and felt that this judgment should be taken into consideration. However, since it is only based on fact, it will not be taken as too much consideration. Thus, the person robbed feels treated unfairly. This is why it could be controversial. To expand further, what qualifies as self-incrimination could have different interpretations and lead to controversy. Usually, the protection against self-incrimination means that people when being tried do not have to speak or give up any knowledge that may be used as evidence against them, but the lines can become blurred as seen later in the case study example.

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment grants us the right to a quick and fair trial with a jury as well as the right to legal representation. It also means a person needs to be informed of their charges and they are allowed to have a witness.

# 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
It is interpreted as clarafication of the federal government being largly limited and enumerated.

# data[].attributes.body
"Enumerated rights of the people" (The people have rights other than those in the constitution). The rights of citizens will be protected whether these rights are listed or not. Examples are, the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one's health care or body.

# data[].attributes.body
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). This case recently challenged the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that New York's strict requirements for getting a concealed carry license violated the Second Amendment. The case focused on whether individuals had the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, highlighting the importance of personal gun ownership rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Case study:                                                                               

# data[].attributes.subject
Case study:                                                                               

# data[].attributes.body
1997 The federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns because that's something that the state has power over, not the federal government.

# data[].attributes.body
Some interpret the right to a lawyer as stating that all people are allowed to have a lawyer represent them. Recently, it has been widely interpreted that it means a lawyer should be provided if a person can't afford one.

This amendment could be controversial because it gives rights to the criminal. When it comes to extreme cases like war crimes or murder, it's hard not to be impartial to the criminal. Many people may see this as unfair to the victims, but Lady Liberty is supposed to be blind and impartial.

# data[].attributes.body
A recent case related to the 7th Amendment, involved the lawsuit against the company Bayer over its weedkiller called Round Up. Thousands of competitors claimed Roundup caused cancer, and in 2020, Bayer faced multiple jury trials where they were ordered to pay large settlements. The case challenged how much power juries should have in deciding civil lawsuits and whether companies can limit these rights through settlements.

# data[].attributes.body
The rights that are not addressed in the Constitution does not belong to the federal government. They belong to the people. And the rights that are specified in the Constitution isn't the only ones that the people could claim.

# 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
Some may interpret this as you can't be searched with a warrant or evidence. Some others interpret this as a personal right and a shield against any unlawful searches. If someone obviously committed a crime but there is no evidence, an officer can't search them without a warrant which takes time and reasonable evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Kansas v. Cheever (2013) - Scott D. Cheever shot and killed Greenwood County Sheriff Matthew Samuels while Samuels was trying to arrest Cheever for outstanding warrants in Hilltop, Kansas in 2005. At trial, Cheever claimed a voluntary intoxication defense that rendered him mentally incapable of the premeditation that is required for murder. The prosecution called the psychiatrist to respond to Cheever's claims of his mental capacity at the time. The jury found Cheever guilty and the Kansas Supreme Court held that the admission of the government psychiatrist's testimony into evidence violated Cheever's Fifth Amendment rights. However, the Court believes that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the prosecution from introducing psychiatric evidence to rebut a psychiatric claim as evidence by the defense.

# data[].attributes.body
In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that rights contained in the 9th or 10th amendments could not be used to challenge the exercise of enumerated powers by the government: "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."[

# data[].attributes.body
Carey v. Musladin 2006

In this case, Musladin was on trial for a murder. During his court session, the front row was filled with family members of the victim. They were are wearing buttons that had images of the victim. This added a bias in the court and violated the 6th Amendment, for it didn't give the criminal an impartial jury.

# data[].attributes.body
Fred Phelps and his church followers are apart of a church called the Westbro Baptist Church. They preached about god not loving USA because of the homosexual rate. Saying claims like "God hates USA/ thank God for 911" and "Thank God for dead soldiers". Albert Snyder was a father to a fallen soldier in Iraq and saw these messages at his sons funeral. He decided to sue Phelps for emotional distress. Phelps claiming it was freedom of speech. Which Phelps won because it was protected under the first 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
This amendment could interpreted as a right to privacy and a right to say no to quartering soldiers. However, the word "quartering" can be very vague because it doesn't specify offering housing, food, or general support to soldiers. There isn't much controversy surrounding this 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
This can be used to "create new power", as in Griswold v. Connecticut （1965）, and this also was conflict to some efforts that the law want to do to regulate the citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Engblom v. Carey was a court case that challenged the interpretation of the Third Amendment. After a 1971 prison riot in Attica, NY, the prison keepers went on a strike where they stopped showing up to work, and since nobody was running the prisons, the Governor of NY at the time called the National Guard to keep watch. The issue with this is that the guardsmen were being housed in schools and administrative buildings, kicking out the old tenants. Both Engblom and Palmer filed a lawsuit against the state of NY. The conclusion they came up with was that the National Guard qualifies as soldiers and therefore can't be held in homes and that the law extends past homeowners and goes so far as to include anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and can exclude anyone they want within their space.

# data[].attributes.body
Jones v. Mississippi (2021)

Jones v. Mississippi was a court case revolving around the eight amendment, specifically the imposition of life sentences for minors. Jones was a 15 year old when he committed his crime and was given life without parole. Previously it was said in another case, Miller v. Alabama, that minors could not be given life without parole. Jones's challenged his conviction claiming that it was a cruel and unusual punishment. He was denied by the supreme court. They stated that it was up to the states to determine whether or a not a life sentence is warranted.

# data[].attributes.body
No one is forced to welcome soldiers from the military into their home, or provide lodging for them if they do not want to.