The Bill of Rights by Mrs. Braunstein

Right granted

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:06:26 UTC

Look up the Bill of Rights and copy the wording

Explain

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:06:55 UTC

Use your own words to explain what right(s) this amendment really grants us

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:07:24 UTC

Aost all of these rights can be controversial or be interpreted in different ways. Explain how your right can have different interpretationslm

Case Study

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:11:31 UTC

Describe a real case where the crux of this right was challenged in court

By: Student Names

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:51:06 UTC

Visual that represents this right

pbraunstein — 2022-09-16 18:51:32 UTC

By: Geren, Mikaella

gerenn — 2022-09-16 19:05:19 UTC

By: Dasha, Tyler, Vivianna

810556 — 2022-09-16 19:05:35 UTC

By: Ingrid, Braeden, Sebastian

8102212 — 2022-09-16 19:05:43 UTC

By: Noah Werbinski, Sean Kelly, Bondet Batsford, Noel Kang

8085932 — 2022-09-16 19:05:48 UTC

By: Kelsey Pepito, Emily Gehrlein-Allen

8085001 — 2022-09-16 19:05:52 UTC

Right Granted

2022-09-16 19:06:06 UTC

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

2022-09-16 19:06:10 UTC

Nolan, Anabel, and Ashley

808598 — 2022-09-16 19:06:12 UTC

Right Granted

810556 — 2022-09-16 19:06:29 UTC

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.

By: Dylan, Heidi, and Cyrus

8086241 — 2022-09-16 19:06:38 UTC

By: Kiryl and Marisa

808383 — 2022-09-16 19:07:05 UTC

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

8105451 — 2022-09-16 19:07:13 UTC

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.

Right Granted

8142992 — 2022-09-16 19:07:19 UTC

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.

Rights Granted

gerenn — 2022-09-16 19:07:20 UTC

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.

Right Granted

8083321 — 2022-09-16 19:07:31 UTC

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.

8102212 — 2022-09-16 19:07:37 UTC

Freedom of Speech

8085932 — 2022-09-16 19:07:44 UTC

2022-09-16 19:07:48 UTC

Freedoms concerning any religion

How it Can Be Interpreted/Controversial

8083111 — 2022-09-16 19:07:51 UTC

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.

Right Granted

yg97mgc84n — 2022-09-16 19:07:53 UTC

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.

8085001 — 2022-09-16 19:07:55 UTC

gerenn — 2022-09-16 19:08:17 UTC

By Jamison, Alex

2022-09-16 19:08:23 UTC

Right granted

8085932 — 2022-09-16 19:08:37 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

8085001 — 2022-09-16 19:08:40 UTC

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.

Loren, Lily, and Roman

2022-09-16 19:08:47 UTC

Explain

yg97mgc84n — 2022-09-16 19:09:02 UTC

The first amendment grants individuals the freedom of faith, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

Case Study

yg97mgc84n — 2022-09-16 19:09:14 UTC

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.

Right Granted

808383 — 2022-09-16 19:09:22 UTC

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.

2022-09-16 19:10:07 UTC

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial

8142992 — 2022-09-16 19:10:22 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

8143532 — 2022-09-16 19:10:27 UTC

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.

Right Granted

808650 — 2022-09-16 19:10:44 UTC

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

Explain

gerenn — 2022-09-16 19:10:44 UTC

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.

Case Study

8105451 — 2022-09-16 19:10:46 UTC

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.

Explain

8085001 — 2022-09-16 19:10:52 UTC

The right to a grand jury in criminal cases and forbids double jeopardy and gives protection against self-incrimination.

Case Study

8083111 — 2022-09-16 19:10:53 UTC

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.

Explain

810556 — 2022-09-16 19:10:56 UTC

This amendment protects people from soldiers entering and inhabiting a home without the owners consent. It is prohibited during peacetime

Case Study

8085001 — 2022-09-16 19:11:08 UTC

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.

Explain

8085932 — 2022-09-16 19:11:16 UTC

The second amendment allows individuals to lawfully posses and use firearms.

2022-09-16 19:11:17 UTC

808598 — 2022-09-16 19:11:24 UTC

2022-09-16 19:12:06 UTC

The right to petition

8086241 — 2022-09-16 19:12:06 UTC

808383 — 2022-09-16 19:12:56 UTC

Explain

8142992 — 2022-09-16 19:13:21 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

2022-09-16 19:13:42 UTC

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.

Right granted

808304 — 2022-09-19 01:12:31 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

808304 — 2022-09-19 01:12:40 UTC

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.

Explain

808304 — 2022-09-19 01:12:47 UTC

The 7th amendment grants the people, in civil cases, the right to a trial by jury.

Case Study

808304 — 2022-09-19 01:12:53 UTC

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.

Case Study

8086241 — 2022-09-19 05:15:39 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

808650 — 2022-09-19 07:42:40 UTC

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.

Explain

808650 — 2022-09-19 07:51:38 UTC

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.

How can this right be interpreted in different ways and even be controversial?

8085122 — 2022-09-19 16:40:11 UTC

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.

How can this right be controversial?

8085932 — 2022-09-19 17:34:07 UTC

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.

Case study

808650 — 2022-09-19 18:24:07 UTC

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.

Explain

808383 — 2022-09-19 18:24:23 UTC

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)

8097101 — 2022-09-19 18:26:48 UTC

Explain

2022-09-19 18:27:09 UTC

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.

Case Study

2022-09-19 18:27:20 UTC

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.

Case Study

808383 — 2022-09-19 18:28:18 UTC

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.

Case Study

808399 — 2022-09-19 18:30:36 UTC

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.