WK2BOR

Write 150 words about the video below. No title page. What was the video about? What was eye catching or interesting? What did you learn from this video? Give example from the SSan Bernardino, California case that can relate to the video. Explain your thoughts about videoThe Bill of Rights [Video file]. (2007). Retrieved April 4, 2017, from http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=36176Please Read the Transcript below from a Bill of Rigts videoAFTER WINNING INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND,THE 13 AMERICAN COLONIES WERE SELF-GOVERNING STATES LOOSELY UNITED BY A DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE ARTICLES OFCONFEDERATION. THE DESIRE FOR AN IMPROVEDFEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESULTED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HELD INPHILADELPHIA IN THE SUMMER OF 1787. THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE FOR THE ATTENDEES WAS HOW TO SHAPE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPOWERFUL ENOUGH TO FUNCTION YET FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW STATES TO CONTROL THEIRINTERNAL AFFAIRS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRST FOURARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION DEAL WITH THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN STATES ANDBETWEEN BRANCHES OF THE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE FRAMERS OF THECONSTITUTION ANTICIPATED THE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION AS THE WORLDCHANGED. THE FIFTH ARTICLE CONTAINS RULES FOR AMENDING THE DOCUMENT AND LISTS EACHAMENDMENT AS IT IS ADDED. THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS ANDRATIFIED BY THE STATES AS A GROUP IN 1791.BECAUSE THEY LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND STATES, THEY ARE KNOWN AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS. SINCE 1791, ONLY 17 ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN RATIFIED. THESE 27 AMENDMENTS TELL SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STORIES IN AMERICANPOLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL HISTORY ANDREINFORCE THE VISION OF OUR COLONIAL ANCESTORS THAT THE CONSTITUTION ENDURE AS A DYNAMIC INSTRUMENT TO BOTH GOVERN AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANTPROVISION IN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, HELPS TO PROTECT, AS LAW, CERTAIN CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY AMERICAN. THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE CONGRESS FROM MAKING ANY LAWS THAT LIMIT OR RESTRICTPERSONAL FREEDOMS IN THE AREAS OF RELIGION, SPEECH, THE PRESS, THE RIGHT TOASSEMBLE PEACEABLY, AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. THE FIRST AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS THECONGRESS FROM RESTRICTING THESE RIGHTS THROUGH LEGISLATION OR LAW. BEFORE 1920, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENTOFFERED PROTECTION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY, NOT FROM THE STATES. BUT LATER SUPREME COURT RULINGS HAVE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE RULES TO THEINDIVIDUAL STATE GOVERNMENTS AS WELL. THE FIRST CLAUSE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM MAKING ANY LAWRESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.THE MOTIVATING FACTOR BEHIND THIS WORDING WAS THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ DESIRE TO AVOID AN OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS FIRSTESTABLISHED, AMERICANS WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH OBJECTED TO HAVING THEIR TAXES USED TO SUPPORT CHURCH ACTIVITIES. THEY SAW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH ANDGOVERNMENT AS IMPROPER BECAUSE IT GAVE ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE AN ADVANTAGE OVERANOTHER. IT ALSO ALLOWED PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS AND THELEADERS OF THE OFFICIAL CHURCHES TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE GOVERNMENT.FOR EARLY AMERICANS THIS WAS A GRAVE PROBLEM. A NUMBER OF THE ORIGINALCOLONIES WERE FOUNDED BY MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE FLEEING FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OR PUNISHMENT FOR THEIRBELIEFS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS CONGRESS FROM INTERFERING WITH RELIGIOUSMATTERS. OVER THE YEARS THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN TWO WAYS: FIRST, AS FORBIDDING THE CONGRESS FROM SETTING UP AN OFFICIAL CHURCH OR FAVORING ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER. AND SECONDLY, AS REQUIRING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SO THAT NEITHER CANHOLD INFLUENCE OVER THE OTHER. THE LANGUAGE THAT’S OFTEN USED TO EXPLAIN THIS IS JEFFERSON’S LANGUAGE WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THEGOVERNMENT AND BETWEEN RELIGION. THAT’S NOT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT’S NOT PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT’S ACTUALLY LANGUAGE THAT JEFFERSON USED IN THE LETTER WHEN HE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT HE INTENDED WITH THAT AMENDMENT. BUT THIS WALL OF SEPARATION IS MEANT TO BE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE UNNECESSARYENTANGLEMENT BETWEEN RELIGION AND BETWEEN THE STATE. TODAY, THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT HAS CONFINED ITS INVOLVEMENT IN RELIGIOUS ISSUES TO A FEW SELECTCIRCUMSTANCES. BECAUSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE SUCH A VISIBLE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE ALSO AMONG THE MOST SUSCEPTIBLETO FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGES, ESPECIALLYRELIGIOUS. IN TWO SUCH CASES IN THE 1940’S THE SUPREME COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS AGAINST MANDATORY FLAG SALUTES INSCHOOLS. THESE CASES WERE BOTH PRESENTED BY FAMILIES OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES WHO FELT THAT THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO SALUTE THE AMERICAN FLAG BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.ULTIMATELY, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR STATES COULD NOT REQUIRE THEIR STUDENTS TO SALUTE THE AMERICAN FLAG. IN A 1968 CASE INVOLVINGSCHOOLS AND RELIGION, THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST ARKANSAS’S ATTEMPTS TOPREVENT A BIOLOGY TEACHER FROM TEACHING HIS PUPILS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.AND IN 1985, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR ALABAMA TO AUTHORIZE DAILY ONE-MINUTE PERIODS OF SILENT MEDITATION OR VOLUNTARY PRAYER.RELIGIOUS INTERESTS HAVE ALSO BEEN HEARD IN CASES REGARDING THE LEGALITY ANDNECESSITY OF COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.DURING WORLD WAR I, CONGRESS REQUIRED THAT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, PEOPLE WHOREFUSED TO USE VIOLENCE, BE ASSOCIATED WITH A WELL-RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS SECT OR ORGANIZATION WHOSE EXISTING CREED OR PRINCIPLES FORBIDS ITS MEMBERS TOPARTICIPATE IN WAR IN ANY FORM. THE LAW, PROVIDING FOR DRAFT EXEMPTION DURING WORLD WAR II, HOWEVER, DID NOT REQUIREASSOCIATION WITH A SPECIFIC CHURCH BUT EXEMPTED INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OPPOSITIONWAS BASED ON RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF.LATER VERSIONS OF THE DRAFT LAW ADOPTED BY CONGRESS ALLOWED EXEMPTION FOR BELIEFS THAT INVOLVED A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING. IN UNITED STATES VERSUS SEEGER, 1965, DONALD SEEGER ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY HIS1957 CLAIM THAT HE WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. SEEGER REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING AND ARGUEDTHAT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS COULD EXIST WITHOUT BELONGING TO AN ORTHODOX SECT.SEEGER WAS EVENTUALLY CLASSIFIED AS ACONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR AND EXEMPTED FROM SERVICE. THANKS TO THE TWO RELIGIOUSLIBERTY CLAUSES IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE UNITED STATES HAS THE MOST RELIGIOUSLYDIVERSE AND PLURALISTIC SOCIETY OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE, OR FOR THAT MATTER IF YOU HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, THEGOVERNMENT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THEM.CONVERSELY, GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PROMOTE OR ADVANCE ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION ORRELIGION IN GENERAL. THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ONE OF OURNATION’S MOST FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. EARLY AMERICANS WHO EXPRESSED IDEAS THAT WERENOT POPULAR GOT INTO TROUBLE WITH COLONIAL OFFICIALS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEGOVERNMENT ITSELF WAS CRITICIZED. A PERSON WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST AUTHORITY WAS LIKELY TO BE FINED OR PLACED IN THE STOCKS OR JAIL. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED TO PROTECT FORMS OF SPEECH THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN RESTRICTED BY ENGLISHGOVERNMENT. OVER THE YEARS THE SUPREMECOURT HAS JUDGED CASES IN WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO DEFINE WHAT KINDS OFEXPRESSION WERE PROTECTED BY THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN SOME CASES THE SPEECH IN QUESTION WAS NOT VERBAL BUT SYMBOLIC. FOR INSTANCE, IN 1969,PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS IN DES MOINES, IOWA PROTESTING THE WAR IN VIETNAM WORESYMBOLIC BLACK ARM BANDS AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR PROTEST OF THAT WAR. THE COURT RULED THAT THE ARM BANDS FIT THE DEFINITION OF SPEECH AND THE STUDENTSDESERVED FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION. THE COURT HAS ALSO QUALIFIED AND DEFINED THE PROTECTIONS OF THE SPEECH CLAUSE ON MANYOTHER SYMBOLIC FORMS OF SPEECH SUCH AS THE FLAG, WORKS OF ART, T-SHIRT SLOGANS, POLITICAL BUTTONS, MUSICAL LYRICS, ANDTHEATRICAL PERFORMANCES. WHILE THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS CONGRESS FROMMAKING LAWS RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVEMADE IT CLEAR THAT NOT ALL SPEECH IS PROTECTED. ONE FREE SPEECH DECISIONREFLECTIVE OF AN ERA WAS SCHENCK VERSUS UNITED STATES, 1919. SCHENCK WAS A CASE WHICH INVOLVED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY AND WAS THE FIRST FREE SPEECH CASE TO REACH THE SUPREME COURT,ESTABLISHING AN IMPORTANT TEST FOR FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. SCHENCK HAD LED AN EFFORT TO PRODUCE AND MAIL 15,000 LEAFLETS SPECIFICALLY TO MEN BEING DRAFTED FOR WAR IN 1917. THE MAILINGS WERE RECEIVED IN THE MIDST OF WORLD WAR I AND URGED THEIR RECIPIENTS TO RESIST THE DRAFT. SCHENCK AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE ARRESTED FOR HAVINGVIOLATED THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT SCHENCK’S CONVICTION WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND IN THISCASE THE SPEECH WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELLHOLMES JUSTIFIED THE DECISION IN THE FAMOUSSTATEMENT: JUSTICE HOLMES, ALONG WITHJUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, CONCLUDED THAT SCHENCK’S LEAFLETS FAILED THE “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” TEST. FOR YEARS THERE WAS A STANDARD WHICH WAS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER STANDARD WHEN INTERPRETING IT. SO IF THE WORDS CREATED A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, THEY COULD BE CENSOREDBEFOREHAND. MORE RECENTLY, THE COURT HASDEVELOPED A NEW STANDARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH BY A DECISION MADE IN BRANDENBERG VERSUS OHIO IN 1969.WHILE STRIKING DOWN THE CONVICTION OF A KU KLUX KLAN MEMBER, THE COURT RULED THATSPEECH COULD ONLY BE SUPPRESSED IF IT IS LIKELY TO PRODUCE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION.THIS BRANDENBERG STANDARD PREVAILS EVEN TODAY AND HAS BEEN FUNDAMENTAL TO THECURRENT UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN THE MOST VIOLENT OF SPEECH IS TO BE PROTECTED.THE CURRENT POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT HAS ULTIMATELY BEEN EFFECTIVE INMAINTAINING THE PERMISSIBILITY OF NEARLY ALLFORMS OF SPEECH. VERY FEW FORMS OF SPEECHHAVE BEEN JUDGED NOT TO MERIT FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION. EVEN WHEN SPEECH IS UNPOPULAR, VIOLENT OR HATEFUL, IT IS AMONG THE MOST SACRED AND BESTPROTECTED OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. OUR PRECIOUS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL OF OUR RIGHTS AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS OFTEN SAID BECAUSEWITHOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, WECAN’T EXERCISE ANY OF OUR OTHER RIGHTS. WE CAN’T EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, FOR EXAMPLE, SO FREE SPEECH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT GUARANTOR OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR LIBERTY. THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. A FREE PRESS, INCLUDING ALL NEWS MEDIA, IS AN AMERICAN INSTITUTION AND ITS PLACE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT SEEMS TOGUARANTEE ITS FUTURE PRESENCE. WITHOUT A FREE PRESS, A DEMOCRATIC FORM OFGOVERNMENT WOULD BE UNLIKELY. A FREE PRESS IS A WATCHDOG THAT GUARDS ALL OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,VIRGINIA’S GEORGE MASON ARGUED THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE INCOMPLETE AS ITINCLUDED: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS WAS AMONG THE FIRST AMENDMENTS TO BE ADVOCATED BY THE DELEGATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHO REQUESTED PASSAGE OF ABILL OF RIGHTS CONTINGENT UPON THEIR STATE’S RATIFICATION. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW FREE PRESS ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN HEAVILY LITIGATED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. MOST NOTABLE AMONG THESE IS THE DOCTRINE OF “PRIOR RESTRAINT”. PRIOR RESTRAINT REFERS TO THE PRACTICE OF CENSORING THE PRESS BEFORE THE PRINTING OF A PUBLICATION ORDOCUMENT. PRIOR RESTRAINT FIRST CAMEBEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN J. NEAR VERSUS MINNESOTA IN 1931. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAD LEGISLATION IN PLACE THAT CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE MINNESOTA GAG LAW. THE GAG LAW ALLOWED THE STATE TO SHUT DOWN ANYPUBLICATION DEEMED TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER, THESATURDAY PRESS, BEGAN PUBLISHING BLATANTLY RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC ACCUSATIONS AGAINST LOCAL ELECTEDOFFICIALS. DETERMINING THE ACTIONS OFEDITOR JAY M. NEAR TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE,THE LOCAL COUNTY ATTORNEY TOOK ACTION TO STOP FURTHER PUBLICATION OF THE SATURDAY PRESS. A LOWER COURT AND MINNESOTASUPREME COURT UPHELD A RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER THE GAG LAW. THE GAG LAW, HOWEVER, WAS STRUCK DOWN WHEN IT CAME BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES STATED THAT THE PAPER COULD NOT BE STOPPED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE BUT THAT INDIVIDUALS LIBELED BY THE PUBLICATION COULD TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE SATURDAY PRESS. THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE OF NEW YORK TIMES CO. VERSUS THE UNITED STATES, 1971, INVOLVED THEPUBLICATION OF INFORMATION CLASSIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUT OBTAINED BY THE PRESS.SECRETS REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF HIGH-RANKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALSWERE INCLUDED IN WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS THE PENTAGON PAPERS- DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENSE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE DANIEL ELLSBERG. THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OVERTURNED INJUNCTIONSPLACED AGAINST THE PUBLICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST. ALL OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ISSUED OPINIONS ON THE CASE. JUSTICE HUGO L. BLACK WROTE: THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS CASES THAT HAVE COME UP HAVE COME UP BOTH IN CASES WHERE WE WANT PRIOR RESTRAINT, LIKE THEY DID DURING THE TIME WHEN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO LIMIT DANIEL ELLSBERG FROM PUBLISHING THE PENTAGON PAPERS, AND IN CASES WHERE AFTER THE FACT PEOPLE SUENEWS MEDIUMS FOR WHAT THEY REPORT. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT GENERALLY THE MEDIA WINS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES. THE RIGHT OF PUBLICATION, THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS A RIGHT WHICH SEEMS TO BE A WINNER ALL ALONG THE WAY. ALSO GUARANTEED IN THE FIRSTAMENDMENT IS THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE THEIRPOLICY OR MAKE AMENDS FOR PAST WRONGS.THE FIRST LARGE-SCALE AMERICAN USE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION CAME IN THE EARLY 1830’S WHEN CONGRESS WAS FLOODED WITH PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. THIS PRACTICE ESCALATED TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT IN 1840 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADOPTED A STANDING RULE:BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, THIS RULE WAS REPEALED FIVE YEARSLATER. EVEN SO, PETITIONS FOR THE REPEAL OF THE ESPIONAGE AND SEDITION LAWS AND AGAINST MILITARY MEASURES FOR RECRUITING IN WORLD WAR I OFTEN RESULTED INIMPRISONMENT. SINCE THE 1950’S, THE COURTHAS FOLLOWED A BALANCING APPROACH WHEREBY THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTERESTS ARE WEIGHED IN EACH PETITION AND ASSEMBLY CASE. THESE HAVE INCLUDED THE ILLEGALITY OF POLICE STOPPING A PEACEFUL MARCHPROTESTING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION;NUMEROUS COLD WAR ERA DECISIONS REGARDING LOYALTY OATHS; AND THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO JOIN THE ALL-MALE ROTARY CLUB.TODAY CASES TEND TO MERGE THE RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION INTO THE SPEECH ANDPRESS CLAUSES AND, INDEED, ALL OF THESE RIGHTS ARE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF ANINCLUSIVE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS OFTEN SAID, OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS – OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, FREEDOM OFCONSCIENCE, FREEDOM OF RELIGION – THESE ARE PREFERRED RIGHTS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE PREREQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL OF OUR OTHER RIGHTS.IF WE DON’T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FOR EXAMPLE, WE CAN’T ORGANIZE, WE CAN’TPROTEST, WE CAN’T DEMONSTRATE TO ADVOCATE FOR OTHER RIGHTS SUCH AS CIVILRIGHTS AND NONDISCRIMINATION. THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE VITAL TO DEMOCRACY, BUT IN ORDER FORFREEDOM TO FLOURISH PEOPLE MUST USE THAT FREEDOM RESPONSIBLY. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME PEOPLE WHO ABUSE THE PRIVILEGES OF FREEDOM. DO WE TOLERATE THE ABUSES OF THE FEW TO PRESERVE FREEDOM FOR THE MANY? OR DO WE RESTRICT EVERYONE’S FREEDOM IN ORDER TO PUNISH THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF A FEW? ISSUES CONCERNING FREEDOM VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO RESOLVE. EACH GENERATION MUST TACKLETHESE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE THE MEANING AND LIMITS OF FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES.IN 1789 WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS FIRST PROPOSED, NATIONAL SENTIMENT WAS AGAINST KEEPING STANDING ARMIES BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF OPPRESSION BY A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING SUCH AN ARMY. INSTEAD, STATES HAD FORMED MILITIAS, ARMED CITIZENS WHOCOULD MOBILIZE FOR COMMON DEFENSE.MILITIA TROOPS MADE UP A LARGE PART OF THE FORCES DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.AFTER WINNING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE STATES FEARED THAT THE NEW GOVERNMENT MIGHT TRY TO TAKE OVER THEIR MILITIAS. THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED SO THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULDN’T DO THAT.SOME STATE MILITIAS SERVED IN THE WAR OF 1812, BUT BY 1916 THE MILITIAS HAD EVOLVED INTO THE NATIONAL RESERVE. BY 1933, THEY WERE ALMOST COMPLETELY FEDERALLY FUNDEDAND BECAME PART OF THE U.S. MILITARY. TODAY WITH OVER 200 MILLION PRIVATELY OWNED GUNSIN THE U.S. AND VIOLENT CRIME COMMON, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS HAS BECOME A HOTLY CONTESTED NATIONAL DEBATE. WHILE SOME ARGUE THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THEAMENDMENT WAS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF EACH STATE TO MAINTAIN A MILITIA, OTHERSARGUE THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT REALLY CONCERNS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. THEY INTERPRET THE PHRASE “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE” TO MEAN THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS.FOR THEM, THE NEXT PORTION OF THE AMENDMENT, “TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” IS READLITERALLY AND INTERPRETED BROADLY. THIS VIEW IS ENDORSED BY ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, OR NRA.CONVERSELY, GUN CONTROL PROPONENTS SEE THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS SOMETHING THATAPPLIES TO THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION AS A WHOLE RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. TO THEM, THE PHRASE “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT BUT A RIGHT THAT STATES HAVE TODETERMINE WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN SECURITY. SUPREME COURT RULINGS HAVE UPHELD BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO POSSESS CERTAIN FIREARMS AND THEGOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO REGULATE GUN OWNERSHIP. IN PRESSER VERSUS ILLINOIS, 1886, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ALL CITIZENS CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS CONSTITUTE THERESERVE MILITIA OF THE UNITED STATES.HOWEVER, IN UNITED STATES VERSUS MILLER, A 1939 SUPREME COURT CASE DECIDED THAT THE AMENDMENT DID NOT ALLOW FOR ANYONE TO BEAR ANY TYPE OF FIREARM THAT WOULD NOT BE USED BY A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. THE SPECIFICS IN THIS CASE CENTERED AROUND SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS WHICH HAD BECOMEPOPULAR AMONG GANGSTERS OF THE PERIOD BECAUSE THEY COULD BE EASILY CONCEALED.JUSTICE J. MCREYNOLDS WROTE THE SUPREME COURT’S LEAD OPINION IN THE CASE: IN 1993, CONGRESS PASSED THE HANDGUN VIOLENCEPROTECTION ACT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BRADY BILL. UNDER THIS ACT, THOSE WISHING TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN FROM A FEDERALLYLICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MUST WAIT FIVE DAYS AND SUBMIT TO A BACKGROUND CHECK.THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS HAS BECOME ONE BETWEEN GROUPS LIKE THENATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND GROUPS THAT SUPPORT THE BRADY BILL AND WHAT HASHAPPENED IS EACH LOOKS TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROVE ITS ARGUMENT. MY PREDICTION IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS THE SUPREME COURT ALWAYS HAS AS NOT HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, THE SENTIMENT IN THISCOUNTRY IS SO STRONG IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF GUN OWNERSHIP, I THINK AS A POLITICAL MATTER AND AS A SYMBOLIC MATTER THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS GOING TOBE HELD UP AS A WAY TO DEFEAT ANY GUN CONTROL LAWS IN CONGRESS OR STATELEGISLATURES. I THINK IN MANY WAYS THEREFLECTION BACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISSES THE DEBATE THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE HAVING TODAY, WHICH IS A DEBATE ABOUT VIOLENCE AND ABOUT THE DEGREE OF VIOLENCEIN OUR SOCIETY. INTERPRETATIONS OF THEMEANING AND INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS CENTRAL TO THE ONGOING DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. WHEN JAMES MADISON SUBMITTED HIS FIRST DRAFT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THERE WAS LITTLE DEBATE AS TO THE NECESSITY OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT. PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A SERIES OF TAXATION AND OTHER ACTS REGULATING BRITAIN’SCOLONIES IN THE AMERICAS HAD BECOME KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS THE “INTOLERABLE ACTS” BY THOSE COLONISTS WHO OPPOSED THEM. THESE ACTS INCLUDED THE QUARTERING ACT OF 1774. THE QUARTERING ACT SPECIFIEDTHAT WHERE BRITISH BARRACKS WERE FULLY OCCUPIED, SOLDIERS WERE TO BE QUARTERED IN LIVERY STABLES, INNS AND ALE HOUSES. IT CALLED, IN FACT, FOR THE HOUSING OF BRITISH TROOPS WHEREVER NECESSARY, INCLUDING PRIVATE HOMES. QUARTERING OF THE BRITISHTROOPS NATURALLY ENRAGED THE COLONISTS.IT WAS VIEWED AS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND AN ECONOMIC BURDEN. IN DEBATES HELD AT THEVIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION IN 1788,PATRICK HENRY STATED: BECAUSE THE THIRD AMENDMENT OFFERS PROTECTION FROM SUCH A SPECIFIC OCCURRENCE, THE NATION’S COURTS HAVE FACED ONLY A HANDFUL OF CASES RELYING UPON INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT SINCE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.IN ONE CASE AN ARMY RESERVIST COMPLAINED THAT ORDERS TO PARTICIPATE IN A VETERANS PARADE VIOLATED HIS THIRD AMENDMENT RIGHTS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THIS STRETCH OF THE LAW WAS QUICKLY DISMISSED. MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS CONSIDER ONE INCIDENT TO BE HISTORY’S ONLY RELEVANTOPPORTUNITY FOR THE AMENDMENT’S INTERPRETATION. IN APRIL 1979, MOST OF THECORRECTIONS OFFICERS AT THE MID-ORANGE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN WARWICK, NEW YORK JOINED A STATEWIDE STRIKE AND WALKED OFFTHE JOB. MANY OF THE OFFICERS AT THE MID-ORANGE FACILITY LIVED IN DORMITORY STYLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE GROUNDS OF THE INSTITUTION. THESE UNITS WERE OWNED BY THE STATE AND OFFICERS HAD A HOUSING FEE DEDUCTED FROM THEIR PAYCHECKS EACH MONTH. WHEN THE WALK-OUT OCCURRED,STRIKING RESIDENT OFFICERS WERE LOCKED OUT OF THE FACILITY, INCLUDING THE LIVING SPACE. IN APRIL 1979, NEW YORK GOVERNOR HUGH CAREY MOBILIZED THE NATIONAL GUARDTO TEMPORARILY PROVIDE SECURITY IN THE STATE PRISONS. THROUGHOUT THE THREE-WEEKSTRIKE, GUARDSMEN WERE HOUSED IN THE ROOMS OF STRIKING OFFICERS WITHOUTCONSENT. SEEING THE CASE AS A VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED RIGHTS, MARIANNE E. ENGBLOM AND CHARLES E. PALMER SUED GOVERNOR CAREY FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE THIRD AMENDMENT. A NEW YORK FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT THE GUARDSMEN, BEING THE CONSTITUTIONALLY STIPULATEDSUCCESSORS TO A MILITIA, WERE INDEED SOLDIERS AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXT OF THEAMENDMENT. BUT IT WAS JUDGED THAT THELIVING QUARTERS WOULD ONLY REMAIN HOMES AS LONG AS THE OFFICERS KEPT THEIR JOBS.THE COURT RULED THAT THIS CASE DID NOT CONCERN A HOUSE AS SPECIFIED IN THE TEXT OFTHE AMENDMENT. NO CASE INTERPRETING THETHIRD AMENDMENT HAS EVER BEEN TESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT. THE THIRD AMENDMENT HAS NO DIRECT IMPACT IN THE SENSE THAT WE DON’T ANY LONGER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FORCED QUARTERING OF TROOPS IN PRIVATE HOMES. THAT WAS A VERY REAL PROBLEM FOR OUR COLONIAL ANCESTORS. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE TROOPS EVER GO INTO YOUR HOME BUT IT CAN ONLY BE DONE AT A TIME OF DECLARED WAR AND IT CAN ONLY BE DONE AT A TIME AND UNDER PROCEDURES THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW. SO IT ISN’T TO SAY THAT YOUCOULD NEVER EVER HAVE THE MARINES SHOWING UP AT YOUR DOOR AND ASKING TO STAY OVER, BUT IF THEY DO THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR IT. HOWEVER, INDIRECTLY THE THIRD AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO BE EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IN MODERN TIMES HAS CITED IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FRAMERS’ CONCERN FOR INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY. THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE THIRD AMENDMENT REMAINSSIGNIFICANT IN THAT IT IMPLIES THE RIGHTS OFCITIZENS TO PRIVACY IN THEIR HOMES. AND WHILE THE THIRD AMENDMENT HAS NEVER BEENWIDELY APPLIED, IT NEVERTHELESS PROVIDES ANEXPLICIT DESCRIPTION OF A GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHT, PERHAPS MOST NOTABLE IN PLACING IMPORTANCE IN THE CITIZENRY BEFORE THEMILITARY. LIKE OTHER AMENDMENTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES STEM FROM THE DESIRE FORPROTECTED PERSONAL LIBERTIES. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT GREW FROM THE COLONISTS’ STRONG OBJECTION TO THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO COLONIAL OFFICIALS OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ENTER ANY HOME TO SEARCH AND SEIZE BELONGINGS WITHOUT A VALID SUSPICION OF WRONGDOING OR PROBABLECAUSE. PRIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION, WRITS OF ASSISTANCE OR GENERAL WARRANTS AUTHORIZED THE BEARER TO ENTER ANY HOUSE TO SEARCH FOR AND SEIZE PROHIBITED AND UN-CUSTOMED GOODS. WITH THESE VAGUE DOCUMENTS, AGENTS OF THE CROWN WEREABLE TO CONDUCT POORLY DEFINED BROAD SEARCHES OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT RIGHTS. IT SAYS THAT BEFORE ANYGOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, SUCH AS A POLICE OFFICER, MAY INTRUDE IN YOUR PRIVACY, YOUR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, HE OR SHE HAS TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE, A PARTICULAR REASON,TO SUSPECT THAT YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW OR ARE ABOUT TO. THEREFORE, UNLIKE IN OTHER COUNTRIES, POLICE OFFICERS CAN’T RANDOMLY STOP PEOPLE ON THE STREET AND START INTERROGATING THEM. TODAY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MANDATES THAT A SEARCHWARRANT BE ISSUED, USUALLY BY A JUDGE, UPON AN OFFICER’S EVIDENCE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION, OR PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THETARGET OF THE WARRANT HAS COMMITTED A CRIME. THE WARRANT DESCRIBES THE PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED AND/OR SEIZED IN SUCHPARTICULAR TERMS THAT THE OFFICER CHARGED WITH ITS EXECUTION IS LEFT WITH NODISCRETION AS TO HIS DUTY. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IN INTERPRETING THE FOURTHAMENDMENT IS FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND UPHOLDING THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES.THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WAS FORMULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1914 IN WEEKS VERSUS UNITED STATES. WEEKS HAD BEEN CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM HIS HOME IN THE COURSE OF TWO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. UNANIMOUSLY THE COURT HELDTHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE TRIAL COURT. IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, JUSTICE WILLIAM RUFUS DAY SAID: THIS PROTECTS BECAUSE THE POLICE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CATCH THE BAD GUYS. THEY DON’T WANT TO BREAK THE RULES AND LOSE THE EVIDENCE SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY WON’T GO INTO YOUR HOUSE AND BREAK THE RULES AGAINST YOU, AN INNOCENT PERSON. BUT ACTUALLY DEFINING WHAT EVIDENCE HAS OR HAS NOT BEENPROPERLY SEIZED IS A PROCESS COMPLICATED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ITSELF. ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE OF ITS TEXT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD, INTERPRETATION OF WHATCONSTITUTES UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND PROBABLE CAUSES WIDELY VARIES AND ISTHEREFORE CONTROVERSIAL. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAVE REVOLVED AROUND TWO BASICAPPROACHES: CERTAIN WARRANTLESS SEARCHES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THESUPREME COURT WHILE OTHERS HAVE NOT. THE COURTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE COMMON LAW IN UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS TOTAKE A PERSON INTO CUSTODY WITHOUT A WARRANT IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TOBELIEVE THAT THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED A FELONY OR HAS COMMITTED AMISDEMEANOR IN THEIR PRESENCE. THE LEGALITY OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF VEHICLES HAS ALSO BEEN ASSOCIATED WITHTHESE CONCEPTS. BECAUSE VEHICLES CAN BE USED TO MOVE EVIDENCE IN A SPEEDY MANNER, OFTEN BEFORE A WARRANT MAY BE OBTAINED,SOME WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CARS, PLANES, AND OTHER VEHICLES HAVE BEEN RULED LEGAL PROVIDED THAT A REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS. SOME OF THE MOST RECENTCASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT INVOLVE RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF STUDENT ATHLETES.IN VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ACTON, 1995, A SEVENTH GRADER AND HIS FAMILY REFUSED TO SIGN A DRUG TEST PERMISSION SLIP REQUIRED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL’S FOOTBALL TEAM BECAUSE THEY FELT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE. THE COURT RULED THE DRUGTEST TO BE LEGAL. WHILE SOME VIEW MANDATORY DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS AND IN THE WORKPLACE AS NECESSARY SAFETY MEASURES, OTHERS VIEW IT AS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. TIME AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE FORCED DRASTIC CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF JUSTICE AS IT IS PROSCRIBED IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY TODAYWHICH I CAN TAKE A DROP OF YOUR BLOOD AND THROUGH DNA ANALYSIS FIND ALL KINDS OFTHINGS OUT ABOUT YOU. I CAN TAKE A STRAND OF YOUR HAIR WHICH YOU CAN LEAVE BEHIND AS YOU GO ALONG AND FIND OUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT YOU. THE TECHNOLOGY TODAY CREATES A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE QUESTION. FORTUNATELY, IN RECENT TIMES THE SUPREME COURT HASRECOGNIZED THAT SEARCHES AND SEIZURES CAN BE CONDUCTED THROUGH SOPHISTICATEDELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT THAT THE FRAMERS NEVER ANTICIPATED, BUT THE SAME PRINCIPLES APPLY. GOVERNMENT MAY NOT SNOOP UPON YOU, INVADE YOUR PRIVACY THROUGH ANY MEANS, UNLESS THEY HAVE PARTICULARIZED BASIS FOR SUSPECTING THAT YOU ARE A LAW VIOLATOR. ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NEVER SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, ITS SPIRIT IS EVOKED IN THE FIRST, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, NINTH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. THIS UNNAMED RIGHT WILLCONTINUE TO INFLUENCE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR MANY YEARS TOCOME. AMENDMENTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 TOGETHER CONSTITUTE A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PEOPLEACCUSED OF A CRIME OR SEEKING JUSTICE IN THE CIVIL COURTS. THE FIRST CLAUSE IN THEFIFTH AMENDMENT STATES THAT BEFORE ANYONE CAN BE TRIED IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR A SERIOUS CRIME, A GRAND JURY MUST FORMALLY ACCUSE THAT PERSON IN AN INDICTMENT, A FORMAL CHARGE. THE GRAND JURY DOES NOT DECIDE THE CASE. IT EXAMINES EVIDENCE VERY CAREFULLY TO DECIDE IF THEREIS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO HOLD A TRIAL. A CIVILIAN WHO IS CHARGED WITH ARMED ROBBERY, MURDER, OR OTHER SERIOUS OFFENSECANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHOUT THE ORDER OF A GRAND JURY. THIS IS A GROUP MADE UP OF NO LESS THAN 16 NOR MORE THAN 23 CITIZENS WHO ARE CHOSEN FROM AMONG THETAXPAYERS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE JUDGE IS CONDUCTING COURT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE CASE THE GRAND JURY DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TOISSUE AN INDICTMENT FOR THE ACCUSED TO STAND TRIAL. THIS PROCESS PROTECTS THEINDIVIDUAL FROM HASTY, IMPROPER ACTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. IF A PERSON IS INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY, HE OR SHE WILLTHEN BE TRIED BY A PETIT, OR SMALL, JURY. THE PETIT JURY DECIDES WHETHER THE PERSON ACCUSED IS GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY AND IS USUALLY SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS “THE JURY”.THIS JURY IS MADE UP OF 12 CITIZENS, AGAIN CHOSEN FROM AMONG THE TAXPAYERS OF ACOURT DISTRICT. ONCE A PERSON IS FOUND NOTGUILTY OF COMMITTING A PARTICULAR CRIME, THAT PERSON CANNOT BE TRIED AGAIN FOR THAT CRIME BY THE GOVERNMENT. NOR MAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUNISH A PERSON MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE SAME CRIME. TO BE TRIED TWICE FOR THE SAME CRIME IS CALLED “DOUBLE JEOPARDY”. AND THIS HAS HAPPENED INPOPULAR CASES SUCH AS THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL WHERE HE WAS TRIED FOR MURDER BY THE STATE, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER. A SECOND TRIAL BY THE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST HIMCIVILLY CHARGED HIM WITH WRONGFUL DEATH USING THE SAME FACTS, THE SAMECIRCUMSTANCES, AND YET THAT WAS NOT VIEWED TO BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE ALL HE COULD LOSE THERE, AND HE DID LOSE THERE, WAS MONEY. AND THE SENSE IS, IF ALL YOU’RE GOING TO LOSE IS MONEY, THAT ISN’T WHAT THEDOUBLE JEOPARDY PROTECTION PROTECTS YOU AGAINST. WE WERE ALWAYS MORE CONCERNED, IN THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY, WITH FREEDOM THAN WE WERE WITH FINANCES. YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE MORE MONEY. YOU CAN’T WIN BACK YOUR FREEDOM. WHILE THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO REMAINSILENT. NO ONE CAN BE FORCED TO SAYANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP CONVICT HIM OR HERSELF OF A CRIME. THE FIFTH AMENDMENTPROVIDES A NUMBER OF PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS TO BE SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ENGAGE IN ABUSES OF POWER WHEN IT PROSECUTES PEOPLE WHO ARE ACCUSED OF CRIME. PROBABLY THE BEST-KNOWNPROTECTION IS THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THAT WAS TO MAKE SURE THATGOVERNMENT DID NOT USE TORTURE TECHNIQUES, EITHER PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL TORTURE, IN ORDER TO COERCE A CONFESSION OUT OF SOMEBODY ACCUSED OF A CRIME. THE ACCUSED PERSON’S RIGHT TO SILE