Bill of Rights Summary -6th Period by Mrs. Braunstein

By: Student Names

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

Visual that represents this right

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

Right granted

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

Look up the Bill of Rights and copy the wording for your amendment

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

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

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

Explain

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

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

Case Study

pbraunstein — 2024-09-17 23:55:55 UTC

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.

1st Amendment

pbraunstein — 2024-09-19 22:37:00 UTC

2nd Amendment

pbraunstein — 2024-09-19 22:37:09 UTC

3rd Amendment

pbraunstein — 2024-09-19 22:37:21 UTC

Amendment 4

2024-09-20 16:52:35 UTC

Amendment 5

2024-09-20 16:52:40 UTC

Amendment 6

2024-09-20 16:52:46 UTC

Amendment 7

2024-09-20 16:52:51 UTC

Amendment 8

2024-09-20 16:52:59 UTC

Amendment 9

2024-09-20 16:53:06 UTC

Amendment 10

2024-09-20 16:53:11 UTC

Stanley Golomb and Christopher Rubio

2024-09-20 21:04:59 UTC

2024-09-20 21:05:02 UTC

Names: Maia, Shiloh, Sophia

2024-09-20 21:06:18 UTC

Names: Noah, Jackie, Rosti

2024-09-20 21:06:32 UTC

Names: Asuka Tomoda, Shivani Bhasale, Junyi Li

2024-09-20 21:06:44 UTC

Definition

2024-09-20 21:07:02 UTC

Any power not given to the Federal Government by the Consitution is a power of either the state or the people.

By: Alan and Measure

2024-09-20 21:07:10 UTC

2024-09-20 21:07:14 UTC

Rights Granted:

2024-09-20 21:07:27 UTC

"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..."

By: Elbert Lo, Ronin Gertz

8117261 — 2024-09-20 21:07:30 UTC

Rights Granted:

2024-09-20 21:08:15 UTC

The Fifth Amendment breaks down into five rights or protections: the right to a jury trial when you're charged with a crime, protection against double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial, and protection against the taking of property by the government without compensation.

Right granted

2024-09-20 21:08:17 UTC

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

Names: Ethan Kizner, Jayden Chen, Tina Sum

2024-09-20 21:08:18 UTC

Meghan, Alison

2024-09-20 21:08:19 UTC

By Max, Linda

2024-09-20 21:08:21 UTC

2024-09-20 21:09:03 UTC

8117261 — 2024-09-20 21:09:03 UTC

2024-09-20 21:09:14 UTC

Case study: Olmstead v. United States

2024-09-20 21:09:21 UTC

In the 1920s, a man named Roy Olmstead ran a notorious bootlegging operation. However, he was eventually apprehended by the police as they successfully wiretapped his telephone conversations. He repeatedly challenged his criminal convictions and sought to overturn them as he believed that without a warrant, this wiretapping operation completely violated his inherent constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagreed as they in a 5-4 decision ruled that the wiretapping did not violate the fourth amendment rights of Olmstead. Instead, they stated that monitoring telephone conversations did not require a warrant. This was a controversial decision as it lowered personal privacy considerably. Consequently, it was overturned 40 years later in the case of Katz v. United States.

2024-09-20 21:09:27 UTC

Explain:

2024-09-20 21:09:29 UTC

The 4th Amendment states that the people are protected from unreasonable or unwarranted searches and seizures.

Rights granted:

2024-09-20 21:09:37 UTC

Right to a fast and public trial by an impartial jury, to be aware of the criminal charges, to confront witnesses during the trial, to have witnesses appear in the trial, and the right to legal representation.

Right Granted

8117261 — 2024-09-20 21:09:42 UTC

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

2024-09-20 21:09:52 UTC

Rights granted :

2024-09-20 21:09:59 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.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, (...) 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 defense.”

2024-09-20 21:10:41 UTC

Right granted

2024-09-20 21:10:42 UTC

The exact wording in the constitution is "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." This grants the right to a jury trial for civil courses under a certain condition.

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

2024-09-20 21:11:48 UTC

Some think the death penalty is cruel, while others think it's fair. Prison conditions like solitary confinement are also debated. What was okay in the past may seem cruel today. Long sentences for small crimes can be seen as either too harsh or necessary.

Explanation

2024-09-20 21:12:36 UTC

This protects the right for citizens to have a jury trial for civil courses regarding claims or other times when one group owes money to the other, as long as the amount of money owed is over a certain dollar amount.

Explanation

2024-09-20 21:12:38 UTC

This amendment sums up how the government cannot take away any rights of the American people that are not specifically listed within The Constitution.

Explain :

2024-09-20 21:12:52 UTC

No one is forced to welcome soldiers into their homes during peacetime if they don't want to, unless it is prescribed by law; normally during war times.

2024-09-20 21:13:00 UTC

Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

2024-09-20 21:13:16 UTC

A New York state law gave a monopoly over navigation on waters within state jurisdiction. People tried to overcome this monopoly but, in the end, ended up failing. In the end, Justice Marshall concluded that the regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for conducting interstate commerce was a power that was reserved and exercised by the Congress under the commerce clause.

In the Supreme Court case Gideon vs. Wainwright it was ruled that under the 6th Amendment, the Constitution requires the States to provide attorney to criminal defendants that can not afford one.

2024-09-20 21:13:23 UTC

Explain

2024-09-20 21:13:41 UTC

The 2nd amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms (own weapons such as guns).

Explanation

2024-09-20 21:13:56 UTC

The 1st Amendment allows us to have freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion, and freedom to spread thoughts, views, and news. It also allows us to protest peacefully and to petition against something that we don't agree is working within the government. Even though we are granted these rights there are still some restrictions when it comes to each right. For example with freedom of speech, you are allowed to speak freely but if you were to threaten someone, say the president, you would be punished by law.

Right granted

2024-09-20 21:14:01 UTC

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.

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

2024-09-20 21:14:06 UTC

Even though the Seventh Amendment says that it's limited to "suits at common law", which means that cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law, the amendment applies in lawsuits that are similar to old common law cases.

Explain

2024-09-20 21:14:11 UTC

Punishments should be fair and not extreme depending on the crime. It also protects people from being fined too much money or being treated badly in prison.

Explain:

2024-09-20 21:14:24 UTC

A person has a right to a Grand Jury on capital (death), treason, or felony charges except in the military. A person cannot be charged a second time for the same crime after he has been acquitted once. A person does not have to incriminate themselves in a court or with police (right to remain silent), and cannot lose their life, freedom or property without due process, and can't have private property taken for public use without payment.

Interpretation

2024-09-20 21:14:27 UTC

This amendment can be perceived as a bad thing as firearms can get into the hands of the wrong people, in which case this could endanger lives. Though the freedom to own a firearm in itself can be perceived as a good thing, likely for purposes around self defense or sport.

Morse V Frederick (2007):

2024-09-20 21:15:01 UTC

Joseph Frederick was a high school student who held a banner stating "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and Principal Deborah Morse claimed the banner advocates for illegal drug activity. This case states that educators are not prevented from prohibiting speech if it promotes illegal drug activity

How Can This Be Interpreted In Different Ways and Even Be Controversial?

2024-09-20 21:15:15 UTC

The fifth amendment can be controversial because it has the right against self-incrimination and allowing individuals to legally not answer any questions. The Fifth Amendment influences police practices and interrogation methods. Controversies can arise over the use of tactics that some believe violate the spirit of the amendment, even if they don't break the law.

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

2024-09-20 21:15:20 UTC

Although it may not seem too relevant today, it still has modern implications. It still acts as a safeguard of personal privacy and property rights, preventing the government from imposing on individuals’ homes. There isn't much controversy surrounding this amendment.

Case Study:

2024-09-20 21:15:48 UTC

Miranda v Arizona:

In March of 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and then interrogated by police for several hours on the case of a kidnapping and rape, in which he confessed to the kidnapping and rape. It was admitted as evidence in his trial, even though the police officers admitted that they had not advised him of the right to have an attorney present. Miranda was convicted, and when he attempted to appeal, the Supreme Court of AZ said his rights weren't violated because he didn't directly request a lawyer.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is expanded to cover when a person is taken into police custody, not just in court. This case led to the "Miranda Rights" which are read off by police officers during an arrest: The right to remain silent, that anything that he says can be used against him in a court of law, and that he has the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed prior to questioning.

How can it be intrepreted differently?

2024-09-20 21:15:49 UTC

It is intepreted as a clarification that the federal government's powers are largely limited and specifically enumerated.

By Lakshya Mayala and Sebastian Garcia

2024-09-20 21:15:53 UTC

Interpretations

8117261 — 2024-09-20 21:16:05 UTC

The 9th Amendment can vary between interpretations. Some may view it as a protection of unenumerated rights that courts can recognize, while others believe that rights not listed in the Constitution are left to the states and people to define.

Case study: Furman vs. Georgia

2024-09-20 21:16:23 UTC

The case of Furman vs. Georgia was about whether or not the death penalty is constitutional or not. Three men were individually charged, one with murder, and 2 with rape. these 3 people were given the death penalty and argued that it was a cruel and unusual punishment. The case led to the death penalty being put on hold until a later case, Gregg vs Georgia, reinstated it.

Case study: Engblom v. Carey

2024-09-20 21:16:54 UTC

It doesn't get violated often today, but it has been violated at different times throughout history.

Engblom v. Carey

In Engblom v. Carey (1982), the Second Circuit ruled that the Third Amendment applies to National Guardsmen, extends to state actions, and protects tenants with control over their residences. The case arose after correctional officers were evicted from their dorms during a strike to house National Guardsmen. Despite finding a Third Amendment violation, the court ruled in favor of the state due to qualified immunity.

Interpretations and controversy

2024-09-20 21:17:02 UTC

Many people might have different interpretations of the word "unreasonable." Some may argue that some kind of reason could be enough to justify a search, but some may disagree heavily, and argue that that same reason does not justify a search whatsoever. The term "unreasonable" gives a lot of room for interpretation and personal opinion.

While the 6th Amendment aims to protect those accused, there is some controversy regarding whether or not it serves underprivileged individuals equally.

2024-09-20 21:17:06 UTC

Interpretation

2024-09-20 21:17:26 UTC

Many people can misinterpret the 1st Amendment when someone thinks that just because you have the freedom of speech you can say whatever you want. That's not true, there are categories of unprotected speech like false advertising, defamatory speech, and fighting words.

Right granted

2024-09-20 21:19:17 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

Case Study

2024-09-20 21:19:19 UTC

Planned Parenthood V. Casey (1992)

This case challenged the 9th Amendment because it had to do with an individual's rights and freedoms that weren't listed in The Constitution. The Supreme Court established restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an "undue burden" on a person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable.

Definition:

2024-09-20 21:20:14 UTC

Congress may not violate the rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, peacable assembly, and petition.

Case study

2024-09-20 21:20:40 UTC

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Case discussed ban on handguns in homes.

Led to the discussion of gun violence and restrictive laws.

Decided that a ban on handguns in homes would be in violation of the 2nd amendment as guns can be used as self defense weapons lawfully in the context of a threat.

Case study: Dairy Queen, Inc. v Wood

2024-09-20 21:21:05 UTC

In this case, Dairy Queen claimed that the petitioner breached a contract to pay $150,000 in 1962. This is relevant to this amendment because the district judge refused to give a trial by jury.

2024-09-20 21:39:37 UTC