# 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. In order words, no one and anything is allow to take away our own believes .

# data[].attributes.body
The right to bear arms. What does that really mean? The Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard.

# data[].attributes.body
QUARTERING OF SOLDIERS

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
SEARCH AND SEIZURE

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
GRAND JURY, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, SELF INCRIMINATION, DUE PROCESS, TAKINGS

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
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL BY JURY, WITNESSES, COUNSEL

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his deference.

# data[].attributes.body
JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL LAWSUITS

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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

# data[].attributes.body
EXCESSIVE FINES, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

# data[].attributes.body
NON-ENUMERATED RIGHTS RETAINED BY PEOPLE

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

# data[].attributes.body
RIGHTS RESERVED TO STATES OR PEOPLE

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.headline
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the
1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the
flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with
violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the
American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and
convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by
the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, incorporated against the states, and that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises. The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment.

The case was remanded to District Court where it was decided in the defendants' favor, due to the principle that as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they knowingly acted illegally. In the absence of any previous precedent on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.

# data[].attributes.headline
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
The First Amendment - 
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Act permits the destruction of worn-out flags in a
prescribed manner. The Act also acknowledges that
prosecutions of flag-burning only occur when this action
would be likely to offend others. Although it is argued that
the state may have an absolute right to prohibit flag
burning, Texas has chosen to limit its proscriptions. For
instance, it would permit private burnings, perhaps even in
the midst of like-minded individuals. It does not, however,
permit flag burning in public when this would be likely to
incite others. The state realizes that this action triggers
strong emotions in some and may lead to violence. The
State has a compelling interest in prohibiting flag burning in
order to keep the peace. The State permits respectful
burnings of worn-out flags because there is not much
chance that this action will lead to violent outbursts.
The Texas Act clearly discriminates on the basis of
viewpoint. It allows respectful, but not disrespectful,
destruction of the flag. Its antipathy toward
disrespectful destruction of the flag is further
highlighted by the fact that it prohibits actions that
are likely to offend others. First Amendment rights
cannot be based on the reaction of others. The First
Amendment is meant to protect unpopular ideas.
The First Amendment would be undermined if
unpopular speech were disallowed.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Eighth Amendment -
Roper v. Simmons (2004)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Eighth Amendment -
Roper v. Simmons (2004)

# data[].attributes.body
Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of appeals to state and federal courts lasted until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. Then, in 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmon's execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally disabled. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day) violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.body
The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by National Guardsmen who were activated.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Eighth Amendment - 
Roper v. Simmons (2004)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Eighth Amendment - 
Roper v. Simmons (2004)

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day) violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Third Amendment -
Engblom v. Carey (1982)

# data[].attributes.body
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Irving R. Kaufman maintained that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency in prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Eighth Amendment -
Roper v. Simmons (2004) 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Eighth Amendment -
Roper v. Simmons (2004) 

# data[].attributes.body
Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, 6-to-3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky had relied on a finding that a majority of Americans did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional.

On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people.