https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq en-us 2017-10-03 15:01:01 UTC 2026-02-21 07:12:11 UTC hello@padlet.com sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/193473821 -The first amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition.
-Freedom of Religion: Government may not establish an official religion, nor endorse or interfere with the exercise of religion.
-A court case called Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, rules that a Santa Fe school policy of permitting students to lead prayers before football games.
-In my opinion, the players should have been aloud to pray before a game. For many religion is a huge part of their life and should be able to pursue it whenever they want and can.
-Freedom of speech: individuals are free to express their opinions and beliefs
-A court case called Morse v. Frederick was about freedom of speech.
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the school’s mission to discourage drug use.
-Freedom of speech is important because it allow us to express our own opinions.  Without freedom of speech people would have a say for us and it would be based on what they want.
-Freedom of Press: This press has the right to gather information and publish information ,including that when which criticizes government.
- The was a case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama sued the New York Times for running an advertisement that claimed police brutality in Montgomery. Even though the advertisement was false in only a few respects and the publisher printed it without knowledge of the misstatement.
- Press is an important factor in the United States today because it allows for newspaper, radio, television, and now many other online sources to publish articles and express opinions.
-Freedom of Assembly: Individuals may gather peacefully 
- In 1962 there was a case called Edwards v. South Carolina it was a group of 187 petitioners whom were all black they marched and it was completely peaceful, as well they didn't block pedestrians or vehicular traffic. As they marched they sang religious music and patriotic songs like the Star Spangled Banner. They were arrested and later convicted on a charge of violating peace. 
- The people SHOULD NOT have gotten arrested for gathering together and marching peacefully. As long as no fight had broke off there was no need for arresting those innocent people. 


]]> 2017-10-03 15:05:39 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/193473821 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195372659 -An amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state militia.
-In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
- In my opinion guns should be banned. Because you can pull a gun on someone anytime anywhere. The only people that should be able to have guns are trained officers. ]]> 2017-10-09 19:58:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195372659 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195376424 -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.
- The court case Engblom v. Carey was the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner."
-My opinion of this amendment is i think a solider should be able to live in your personal home. Your giving back to them after what they have gave back to us for serving our country. 

]]> 2017-10-09 20:15:33 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195376424 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195416648 -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.
-Carpenter v. United States was a case in which the Court will determined whether the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.
-In my opinion, you should be able to be searched without a warrant. An officers shouldn't have the ability to just barge into a house and search it. I agree that they need a warrant to approach problems.

]]> 2017-10-10 01:08:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195416648 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195418191 -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 offense 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.
-Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession.
- I could argue both side on this amendment. In a way I lean to the amendment and agree that you have the right to remain silent. But then i also can argue that you should be able to remain silent and that you need to express you side of the situation. 


]]> 2017-10-10 01:16:48 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195418191 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195419622 -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 defense.
-In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves.
-In my opinion I agree with the  Sixth Amendment. I think that you should have to be able to have a lawyer so they can back you up on you situation. 


]]> 2017-10-10 01:26:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195419622 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195420681 -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.
-Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if there is to be an award of required damages in a copyright infringement case, then the opposing party has the right to demand a jury trial.]]> 2017-10-10 01:33:47 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195420681 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195421019 -Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
-Coker v. Georgia, held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly inappropriate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
-In my opinion the punishment for any case should be based upon how bad the incident was. It the case was murder for example it would have a bigger punishment than stealing. ]]> 2017-10-10 01:36:27 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195421019 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195421758 -Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
-Case Bailey v. Alabama, Alonzo Bailey was an African American from Alabama who agreed to work for The Riverside Company for one year at $12 per month. The evidence presented against Bailey at trial was testimony that he stopped working, without cause, failed to repay the $15 advanced to him and that he was a Negro.
-In my opinion slavery is should never be an option. All though it had happen a while ago in the U.S. it should never be a thought today. Everyone one should be treated equal without being discriminated. ]]> 2017-10-10 01:42:47 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195421758 sophielclavel https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195422681 -The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 - In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute lowering the voting age to 18 was unconstitutional.
-Individuals under 18 should be able to vote. They need to hear the voices of not only older people but younger too. We think different than the other population so we should be heard too. ]]> 2017-10-10 01:49:27 UTC https://padlet.com/sophielclavel/noerqseo1lfq/wish/195422681