Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Bill of Rights
Transcript of Bill of Rights
Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
The Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the 1st Amendment
The Freedoms of Assembly and Association Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
The right to freedom of speech comes from the first amendment. It is guaranteed to all Americans.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been protecting this right since 1920.
The "Courtroom projections" of the 5th and 6th Amendments
The 5th Amendment gives a criminal suspect the right to "refuse to be a witness against himself"
The 6th Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney
Something known as your "Miranda rights" comes from the landmark 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona
At the time of arrest a person
must be told
his or her rights to remain silent and have an attorney present
Image by goodtextures: http://fav.me/d2he3r8
The protections against Search and Seizure
The Freedom of Speech Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
First Amendment States:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; 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."
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.
The 4th Amendment protects personal privacy and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their homes or property
It provides safeguards to individuals during searches
Property may not be searched unless the officer has a search warrant, an arrest warrant, or a reasonable belief of "probable cause" that an individual has committed a crime
"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."
The Second Amendment is highly controversial. Many people interpret it as the right for states to have an armed militia, but many others interpret as the right for individuals to have weapons. In 1939 a Supreme Court ruling stated that the amendment applies only to state militias, allowing the government to limit gun sales and ownership.
The first line in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," refers to the establishment clause.
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.
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 witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment:
"...or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."
Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968; 9 votes Epperson, 0 against): Arkansas passed a state law that made it illegal to teach evolution in public schools. Court ruled that by prohibiting evolution, it was advancing religious beliefs.
Everson vs. The Board of Education (1946) New Jersey law allowed for parents to be reimbursed if their children used the public transportation system. Catholic school students could also get this subsidy. The court ruled that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it is a "general program" children of all religious backgrounds.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1970; 8 votes for Lemon, 0 votes against): The states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island made laws that made financial aid available for church educational schools. The courts found this to be unconstitutional for it further benefited religious belief.
"To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."' -Chief Justice Burger
Engel vs. Vitale (1961; 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote against): "The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day." The court found that the state of New York approved religion and therefore saw it as attempting to advance religious acts. The decision is still unpopular to this day.
Wallace vs. Jaffree (1984; 6 votes for Jaffree, 3 votes against): Alabama law made it so teachers could conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in the classroom. Courts ruled that it "endorsed" religion and violated the Establishment Clause.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
14-year old girl (T.L.O.) was caught smoking in the bathroom at school
Later, in the assistant vice principal’s office, she denied smoking
Assistant vice principal demanded her purse, and found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, a large amount of money, and a list of students who owed her money
The evidence was used by the New Jersey Juvenile Court to find her guilty of delinquency
She appealed, and the New Jersey Appellate Court decided that "the evidence was legal and thus admissible"
She appealed again, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, saying the search was unreasonable and the evidence must be suppressed
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court, holding that
school officials can search a student if they have reasonable suspicion
The 1st Amendment states this about the Free Exercise of Religion, "Congress shall make no law... or prohibiting the exercise therof"
District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008)
This was the first case in seventy years that regarded the second amendment gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation 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 denied them relief and upheld that the second amendment only applied to state militias. The U.S. Court of Appeals voting two to one that the Second Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners. Petitioners agreed with the original decision of the federal court. They argue that D.C. is a federal enclave not a state, and that the legislation only limits gun ownership but does not prohibit it. Although many disagree there is one thing everyone can agree on about the second amendment, it needs to be clearly defined. Whether there is a relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment, or if it just pertains to state militias.
McDonald vs Chicago(2010)
In this landmark case the Supreme Court further clarified the second amendment. After federal court denied plaintiffs of relief the Court of Appeals voted 5 to 4 for the plaintiff. They came to a conclusion that the Second Amendment includes the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and is applicable to the states not just federal enclaves such as D.C.
Freedoms of Assembly in the first Amendment:
"... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Weeks v. U.S.
Schenck vs. U.S (1919): The Supreme Court invented the "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could limit an individuals free speech rights within constitutional limits. A man names Charles Schenck was charged with distributing provocative flyers to draftees of WWI. The flyers were to raise awareness about the amount of "involuntary servitude" for the military, which relates back to the Thirteenth Amendment that outlaws slavery. Schenck was charged by the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act (outlaws interference with military operations). Schenck was convicted, the Supreme Court found that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment.
O'Brien vs. U.S (1968): David O'Brien was accused of knowingly burning his Selective Service card to show his views of opposing war. It was said to violate the Universal Military Training and Service Act. HIs conviction was upheld because the Supreme Court found the law to be constitutional.
Miller vs. California (1973): Marvin Miller began a mailing campaign of "adult" material, and sent his advertisements all over California. Most of the mail was unwanted, and many people found it offensive. He was convicted of violating a California law prohibiting the "distribution of obscene material". The court upheld the conviction.
Tinker vs Des Moines (1969): A man named John Tinker was a student in Des Moines, Iowa that got suspended from school for wearing black arm bands with friends to school in support of the truce of the Vietnam War. The parents of the students sued the school for their right to express their opinion. The Supreme Court found that the armbands represented free speech and appealed the conviction.
Texas vs Johnson (1989): Gregory Lee Johnson and group of political activists marched through the streets of Dallas, Texas during a Republican National Convention. The protesters reached city hall and Johnson burned an American Flag. He was arrested, but appealed that burning a flag is symbolic speech. The case got to the Supreme Court, but was in favor of Johnson because symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Bethel vs. Fraser (1986): Matthew Fraser gave a speech at a school assembly inorder to have his friend elected on student government. His speech contained many sexual references but did not contain a swear word. The school suspended Fraser because of his speech. His parents appealed the schools disiplinary action and the Washington Supreme Court said that his free speech rights had been violated. The case was then taken to the U.S Supreme Court where the school board won. The Court said that the school officials acted within the Constitution when disciplining Fraser.
Hazelwood (1988): Two students that were in charge of writing for part of their school newspaper got in trouble for having "sensitive content" in their article. The principle took out the articles and the students fought back by saying it was a violation of their First Amendment Rights. The Supreme Court decided that the principles actions were inappropriate and did violate Free Speech rights.
Citizens United vs. FEC (2010): Citizens United created a movie to show if Hillary Clinton would make a good President or not. The BRCA (regulates campaign money) created a new restriction on how money could be spent while campaigning and did not allow the movie. This was accused of violating free speech by restricting ones ability to campaign for office. The U.S supreme court however, ruled in favor for Citizens United. Saying that it was a constitutional act.
Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks
without a search warrant
They seized papers and convicted him of transporting lottery tickets through mail
Supreme Court (in a unanimous decision) said it directly violated his constitutional right of the 4th Amendment
Mapp v. Ohio
Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials based on illegally obtained evidence (police searched her home for a fugitive)
Supreme Court declared that the search violated the 4th Amendment on a 6 to 3 vote
Katz v. U.S.
Cox vs. New Hampshire (1941): A town in New Hampshire required there to be a permit to be obtained in order to hold a parade, but a group of Jehovah's Witness held a sidewalk parade without obtaining a permit, and were fined for violating the law. They then challenged the law. The court came to a decision that although the government cannot regulate what is said, they can regulate when, where, and the time of public event. So the New Hampshire law stood strong.
Schenck vs. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997): There had been illegal blockades at abortion clinics that protesters set up to show that abortion should be illegal. Abortion doctors took them to court and accused them of not respecting fixed buffer zones of fifteen feet by entryways. The zones allow there to be free flow of traffic on streets and sidewalks, and keeps doorways clear. The Supreme Court upheld the buffer zones and required protesters to remain a safe distance.
Feiner vs. New York (1950): Irving Feiner gave a speech in Syracuse, New York which encouraged people to attend a leftist rally. In it he made remarks that put down local politicians and President Truman. The speech got people riled up, and two police officers asked Feiner to stop due to the fact that there has been a breach of peace. After refusing to stop he was arrested. The Supreme court decided that it was "clear and present danger" and Feiner's arrest was valid because it was in the interest of the community.
De Jonge vs. Oregon (1936): A man named Dirk De Jong addressed a group of protesters that were fighting for better jail conditions at a meeting put on by the Communist Party. Police raided the meeting and arrested De Jonge for "violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute". That means that he was "violating the doctrine that advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution". He was only found guilty of assisting in a public meeting under sponsorship of the Communist Party.
Thornhill vs. Alabama (1939): Byron Thornhill joined a picket line that was protesting against a former employer, although picketing is illegal in Alabama so Thornhill was arrested and fined $100 for breaking the law. He was also the only one to be arrested and tried under this law. The court found that there was no clear and present danger that would have put others in danger, which means that Thornhill was protected under the First Amendment.
Lee vs Weisman (1991; 5 votes for Weisman, 4 votes against): A middle school Principal named Robert Lee from Rhode Island invited a Rabbi to speak at a graduation. During this graduation, the Rabbi recited prayers. Daniel Weisman appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court ruled that a government law cannot make schools recite prayer and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, the government cannot allow the forcing of a state religion.
West Side vs Mergens (1989; 8 votes for Mergens, 1 vote against): West Side High School denied the students the ability to create a Christian club with the same privileges as other clubs. Supreme Court ruled that there could be a non-curricular Christian Club due to the Equal Access Act.
Sante Fe vs Dough (1999; 6 votes for Doe, 3 against): Sante Fe elected student delivered a prayer over the public address system (intercom) before every home football game. A Mormon and a Catholic challenged this so the school made the prayer student initiated. Supreme court ruled that by allowing the students to do this it violates the establishment clause.
Federal agents tapped the phone booth which Katz was using
Based on the information they found, Katz was convicted of illegally transmitting gambling information to clients in other states
Supreme Court ruled that
the 4th Amendment required the police to obtain a search warrant to wiretap a public pay phone
Leon v. U.S.
After an anonymous tip, Leon's house was searched by police (who had a search warrant) and he was indicted for violating federal drug laws
A judge said the search warrant did not show "probable cause", therefore the evidence obtained could not be used at Leon's trial
Supreme Court ruled that there was a "good faith" exception to this exclusionary rule, which requires that
evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials
California v. Acevedo
Charles Acevedo was seen by California police officers entering an unknown apartment with several bags of marijuana
As he came out and drove away, officers stopped his car and searched it, finding marijuana
Acevedo's motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence was denied, and he pleaded guilty
The Supreme Court ruled that
police may conduct warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe the container holds evidence
Vernonia v. Acton
James Acton was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the random urinalysis drug testing
The Supreme Court found that
random drug testing of high school athletes does not violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida state court
His request for an appointed lawyer was denied, he represented himself in trial and was found guilty
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to
require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own
Escobedo v. Illinois
Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken into a police station for questioning
His repeated requests to see his lawyer were refused by police, so Escobedo eventually confessed to murder
The Supreme Court ruled that
Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda confessed to the kidnap and rape of an Arizona woman after a long police interrogation
He later appealed to the Supreme Court saying
he would not have confess had he been informed of his right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination
Supreme Court held that
prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards
Oregon v. Elstad
Michael Elstad was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home
Before being given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1963), Elstad made an incriminating statement
The Supreme Court held that
while the results of the Miranda v. Arizona case required that unwarned submissions must be suppressed, statements that are made knowingly and voluntarily don't have to be suppressed
Reynolds vs U.S. (1878): George Reynolds challenged the anti-bigamy statute. Courts ruled that the First Amendment, although protects religious belief, does not protect religious criminal practices such as bigamy.
West Virginia vs Barnette (1942; 6 votes for Barnette, 3 votes against): The West Virginia Board of Education required students to salute the flag or face consequences. Courts ruled that students did not have to salute the flag.
Wisconsin vs Yoder (1971; 7 votes for Yoder, 0 against): Wisconsin had law that required kids to go to public school until age 16. Yoder refused to send his kids to school and went to the supreme court. Courts ruled in favor of Yoder, saying that it was in the constitution to practice freedom of religion.
Oregon vs Smith (1989; 6 votes Oregon, 3 votes against): Government denied Native Americans benefits because of misconduct on the way they practiced their religion with hallucinogens. Courts ruled in favor of Oregon that they can deny benefits.
Presser Vs. Illinois(1886)
The Supreme Court of the United States in this case decided that if state legislatures are not restrained by their own constitution, they would be allowed to regulate guns and even outlaw them. Saying the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution only limited the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not state legislatures.
"Schenck v. U.S." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 23 Jan 2014
"U.S. Supreme Court Media." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2014.
"United States Courts." USCOURTSGOV RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2014.
"LII Supreme Court Collection: Historic Decisions." Cornell University Law School Supreme Court Collection: Historic Decisions. N.p., 05 Oct. 2001. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.