The Bill of Rights
The First 10 Amendments
Added to the Constitution in 1791
The Bill of Rights is housed in the National
Archives in Washington D.C.
The Bill of Rights
• The bill of rights became part of the
constitution in 1791. These first 10
amendments protect the basic liberties
and rights that you may take for granted
– Freedom of speech
– Freedom of press
– Freedom of assembly
– Freedom of religion
– Right to trial by a jury
More Amendments
• The next 17 amendments that follow the
bill of rights expand the rights of
Americans and adjust certain provisions of
the constitution
Abolish slavery
define citizenship
guaranteed the right to vote to all citizens
authorized an income tax
set up a two term limit for the presidency
Freedom of Religion, Speech,
Press and Assembly
• Amendment I
• 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.
Amendment I
• The 1st Amendment protects the civil
liberties of individuals in the United States.
The 1st Amendment freedoms are not
absolute, however. They are limited by the
right of other individuals.
Tinker v. Des Moines Ind.
Comm. School District Docket
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facts of the Case
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher
Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by
wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday
season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would
provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all
students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the
Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to
remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
Question
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of
symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
Conclusion
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the
First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here
the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had
failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with
appropriate school discipline.
•
Right to Bear Arms
• Amendment II
• 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.
Amendment II
• The purpose of this amendment is to
guarantee states the right to keep a militia
District of Columbia v. Heller
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facts of the Case
For the first time in seventy years, the Court will hear a case regarding the central meaning of the Second
Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring
the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be
kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the
laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The federal trial court in Washington D.C.
refused to grant the plaintiffs relief, holding that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as
the National Guard, and not to private gun ownership.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, voting two to one that the Second
Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners such as plaintiffs. Petitioners agree with the trial
court's decision that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and further argue that (a) the Second
Amendment should not apply to D.C. because it is a federal enclave rather than a state, and (b) that the
D.C. legislation merely regulates, rather than prohibits, gun ownership. Respondents, although disagreeing
on the merits, have also urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship
between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment.
Question
Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a
pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or
trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any stateregulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such
as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as
well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice
Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed
dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as
part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed
with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any
law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second
Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.
Quartering Troops
• Amendment III
• 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.
Amendment III
• This amendment is based on the principle
that people have a right to privacy in their
own homes. It also reflects the colonists’
grievances against the British government
before the Revolution. Britain had
angered Americans by quartering
(housing) troops in private homes.
Searches and Seizures
• 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.
Amendment IV
• Like the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment
reflects the colonists’ desire to protect their
privacy. The British had used search warrants
to seek out smuggled goods. Americans wanted
to make sure that searches and seizures were
conducted only when a judge felt that there was
reasonable cause. The Supreme Court ruled
that evidence seized illegally without a search
warrant could not be used in court.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Facts of the Case
• Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an
admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her
conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
• Question
• Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May
evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment
be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
• Conclusion
• The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all
evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution
is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had
been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an
historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of
excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the
government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of
determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
•
Rights of Accused Persons
• Amendment V
• 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.
Amendment V
• The grand jury will determine if there is enough
evidence to bring the accused person to trial or
to bring an indictment.
• Members of the armed services are subject to
military laws. They may be tried in a court
martial. In times of war, civilians may also be
put under martial law.
• A person may not be tried more than once for
the same crime (double jeopardy)
• Persons may not be forced in criminal cases to
testify against themselves and can refuse to
answer questions that might incriminate them.
Price v. Georgia
•
•
•
•
•
•
Petitioner was tried for murder, found guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter, and sentenced to 10 to 15 years' imprisonment. Following reversal of
that conviction on appeal, he was retried for murder, despite his double jeopardy
claim, again found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to 10 years'
imprisonment. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the second conviction,
rejecting, on the authority petitioner's contention that his retrial for murder constituted
double jeopardy. The Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Held:
1. Though under the continuing jeopardy principle, petitioner could be retried for
voluntary manslaughter, the lesser included offense, he could not, under the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment, be retried and subjected to the hazard of conviction for
murder, of which he had been impliedly acquitted when the jury returned a verdict on
the lesser included offense but refused to return a guilty verdict on that greater
offense. Brantley, supra, is deemed overruled by this Court's subsequent decisions.
2. In view of the hazard of conviction of murder in the second trial and the possible
effect upon the jury of the murder charge, the second jeopardy was not harmless
error.
3. The issue whether petitioner can be retried for voluntary manslaughter under
Georgia law is to be resolved on remand.
reversed and remanded.
Right to Speedy Fair-Trial
• Amendment VI
• 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
defence.
Amendment VI
• An accused person will not be held in jail
for a lengthy period as a means of
punishment without a trial.
• A fair trial means that the trial must be
open to the public, the jury must hear
witnesses and evidence on both sides
before deciding if guilty or innocent.
• Legal councel must be provided to a
defendant.
Amendment 6
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
• Gideon was charged with property felony
in the state of Florida. He could not find
his own attorney so he requested the court
appoint him one. His request was denied.
• Gideon v Wainwright Finding:
• That if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer,
the government must provide one to
defend him or her.
Civil Suites
• Amendment VII
• 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.
Amendment VII
• Common law means the law established
by previous court decisions. In civil cases
where one person sues another for more
than $20.00, a jury trial is provided for.
But customarily, federal courts do not hear
civil cases unless they involve a good deal
more money.
7th Amendment Cases
• A drunk driver doing 60mph rear-ends a Ford Escort,
killing the driver of the Escort. A jury, handing down a
$27 million verdict for the victim's family, decrees that
Ford Motor Co. is 40% responsible for this accident and
thus on the hook for the whole award.
A 17-year-old falls asleep at the wheel, crosses into
oncoming traffic and crashes his SUV head-on into a
Dodge Caravan. The driver of the Caravan is killed when
the passenger behind her, not wearing a seat belt, plows
into her seat. The jury delivers a $49 million punitivedamages award against DaimlerChrysler.
Bail and Punishment
• Amendment VIII
• Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment VIII
• Bail is money that an accused person
provides to the court as a guarantee that
he or she will be present for trial. This
amendment ensures that neither bail nor
punishment for a crime shall be
unreasonably severe.
Example 8th Amendment
• Archie Wheeler is an elderly White man who had a legal
hobby of reloading his own spent ammunition casings
from target practice. The cops learned that he was
keeping gunpowder in a container that was not approved
for gunpowder. So Wheeler was arrested... and held on
$2,000,000 bail. A few days later, he was denied bail
altogether. While searching the Wheeler home, the
federal police tied Archie's 70 year old wife, Elizabeth, to
her bed and kept her there for eight hours. Why did
these outrages happen? The real reason the feds
wanted to arrest and harass the Wheelers is that they
were associated with a White nationalist group called the
National Alliance - which is not a crime. The police didn't
know about any crimes that the Wheelers had
committed, so they made the most of the "inappropriate
container" charge.
Powers Reserved to the People
• Amendment IX
• The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
Amendment IX
• This amendment provides that the
people’s rights are not limited to those
mentioned in the Constitution.
Powers Reserved to the States
• Amendment X
• 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
Amendment X
• This amendment protects the states and
people from an all powerful federal
government.
Examples of 10th Amendment
• States can set their own taxes.
• States can set their own speed limits
• States can establish their own lottery