Bill of Rights

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority

Amendment One

• Congress may not make rules to change freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the right of people to come together in a peaceful way (assembly) or to send petitions to their government.

Amendment two

The people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Amendment Three

During peacetime, the government cannot

make citizens put up soldiers in theirhomes.

Amendment Four

People or their homes may not be searched

unreasonably.

Amendment 5Persons accused of a crime may not be forced to give evidence against themselves. Their lives, freedom, and property may not be taken from them unfairly (Eminent Domain). A person may not be put on trial twice for the same crime (Double Jeopardy) The government cannot punish anyone without due process. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to formally accuse or INDICT a person.

Amendment SixProtects the accused

People accused of serious crimes have the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury. They must be told what charges against him or her. The indicted have the right to have a lawyer. They can also hear and question witnesses testifying against him or her.

Amendment Seven

In most non-criminal cases, there must be a right to a jury trial.

Amendment Eight

Punishment may not be cruel and unusual.

Amendment Nine and Ten

If the Constitution does not give a certain right to the U.S. Government, and also does not forbid a state government to have the right, then the states and the people have it.

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case: Hazelwood School District v.

Kuhlmeier (1988)

• 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East High in St. Louis County Missouri ordered that 2 pages be deleted from the school newspaper.

The 2 articles included: • Information of student’s experience with pregnancy • Another story discussed the impact of divorce on

students.

Principal’s Point of View

• The students in the article could be easily identified although their names were withheld

• The sexual content was too much for the younger students.

• The divorce article actually named a student

1987 it went to the Supreme Court

Constitutional Issue:

•Does the 1st amendment, freedom of speech, prevent school administrators from regulating student speech in school-sponsored publications?

Decision• 5 to 3 against the student editors;

students and adults have different rights in the same setting. Schools must set high standards for student speech, higher than what is in the real world.

• This particular form of speech is different because it occurred as part as the curriculum

• The school newspaper is venue for learning and teaching and schools have the right to say what should and should not be published.

Supreme Court Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

• 1980 a 14 yr old was caught smoking in the bathroom.• TLO claimed that she had not been smoking and had

never smoked.• The Vice-principal searched her purse and found

cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, and a large amount of cash

• She was prosecuted for drug dealing• TLO’s lawyer argued that the vice-principal violated her

4th amendment right, against unreasonable search and seizure.

Supreme Court Issue:

• Does the 4th amendment protect students from searches by school officials?

• Under what circumstances, if any, can school officials search students or their belongings?

• Was the search of TLO’s purse illegal?

Supreme Court Decision

• School officials act in “loco parentis” in their dealing with the students, they act as representatives of the state and therefore must comply with the restrictions of the 4th amendment

• Requiring a teacher to obtain a search warrant would interfere with the swift and informal disciplinary procedures of the school

Supreme Court Case: Tinker v. Des

Moines (1969) • 1965 several Des Moines students decided to

protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school.

• School principals discovered the plan and banned armbands-refusal to remove resulted in suspended

• Three students wore the bands to school and refused to remove them-they were suspended Three students wore the bands to school and refused to remove them-they were suspended

• The fathers filed a lawsuit in a federal court asking that suspension be cancelled.

• They claimed that their freedom of speech was violated

• The school district argued that the Vietnam War was too controversial and feared that the armbands would cause a strong disturbance. Also, the disturbance would interrupt the educational process.

Supreme Court Issue:

• Do students have a right to freedom of expression at school?

• Do school officials have the right to limit freedom of expression?

• School officials often misconstrue student expression: they have targeted rosary beads and necklaces as gang symbols: T-shirts with rock bands

Supreme Court ruled

• that the school had violated their 1st amendment

• There was no evidence that would lead officials to forecast disruption or interference with school

• Therefore schools cannot censor student expression unless it creates a substantial disruption

• Students do not shed their rights completely at the school doors

Supreme Court Case: Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

• Jaffree’s 5-year-old son was asked to recite prayers in an Alabama public school.

• Jaffree a lawyer said that it violated the first amendment, freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

• Alabama required a 1-minute of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” (the word prayer was added in 1981.

• Alabama claimed that it asked for only a moment of silence and did not require a prayer to any particular God.

• Jaffree claimed that they were trying to establish religion in school:

• Son was required to recite, “The Lord’s Prayer” and “God is Good, God is Great”

• Students were asked to participate and if they did not they were teased.

State of Alabama then took it to the Supreme Court, which considered these issues

• Was the law authorizing a moment of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer an attempt to establish a religion?

• Is a child’s 1st amendment right to freedom of religion violated if voluntary prayer is allowed in the school?

Decision

• 6-3 Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional

• Found the word prayer as an endorsement

• By expanding the law with prayer it gave it a religious purpose

• Significance: that simply adding a word shows intension

Kent V. United States (1966)• Background

Morris Kent, 16, who had been on probation since he was 14 for burglary and theft, was arrested and charged with three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington, D.C. Because of the seriousness of the charges and Morris's previous criminal history, the prosecutor moved to try Morris in adult court.

• Morris's lawyer wanted the case to stay in juvenile court where the penalties were much less severe. He had planned to argue that Morris had a mental illness that should be taken into account when deciding where he would be tried. Without a hearing, the judge sided with the prosecutor and sent Morris to adult court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. Morris appealed, arguing that the case should have remained in juvenile court.

Kent V. United States (1966)

• Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against Morris, and said that a minor can be tried and punished as an adult. However, the Justices said that in deciding whether to remove a case from juvenile court, judges must weigh a variety of factors, including the seriousness of the crime; the juvenile's age; and the defendant's criminal background and mental state.

Kent V. United States (1966)

• Impact

• How the courts treat juveniles in the legal system varies from state to state. In many states, those under 18 can be tried as adults for crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or possession or sale of drugs, with punishments that range up to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2005, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders, saying it violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishments."